Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 186

Thread: Open/concealed carry . . ?

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Open/concealed carry . . ?



    Received the photo below in an email from a person in the lower-48. The picture purports to be of a woman shopping in Walmart in Alaska and claims that "no permit required in Alaska for either open (must be 18) or concealed (must be 21) carry."


    Is that true?


    Attachment 73133

  2. #2
    Member 0321Tony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Sterling, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    1,712

    Default Re: Open/concealed carry . . ?

    If I am correct I believe there are three states that do not require a permit for concealed cary. Alaska and I think the other two are Arizona and Wyoming

    Sent while hiding from the boss

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post


    Received the photo below in an email from a person in the lower-48. The picture purports to be of a woman shopping in Walmart in Alaska and claims that "no permit required in Alaska for either open (must be 18) or concealed (must be 21) carry."


    Is that true?


    Attachment 73133
    What part are you asking whether is true? Yes, it is true that you do not need any kind of permit to carry a firearm either openly as she is in the photo or concealed as long as your are of legal age to own the firearm. I wouldn't be surprised if that was in a Walmart in Alaska but can't say for sure. I have seen similar things on occasion in various stores and businesses in both Anchorage and Fairbanks over the years. No big deal.

    Alaska did require a permit for concealed carry for a while, but that was repealed years ago. I don't think there has ever been a requirement for a permit for open carry that I can recall.

  4. #4

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    85

    Default

    I believe you can. But if you look on her left front hip in the 11 o'clock position it looks like she may have a black badge wallet clipped on her belt. Interesting carry belt too.

    See page 1 first sentence in Red type and page 10 regarding open carry.

    http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/alaska.pdf

  6. #6
    Member JR2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    2,129

    Default

    Google is your friend. There are lots of threads on the various gun websites about carrying in Walmart. I read a thread a few years back about Walmart being a good place to practice carrying as they are open to it.
    2007 Kingfisher 2825 - Stor Fisk

    Civilization ends at the waterline. Beyond that, we all enter the food chain, and not always right at the top. -- Hunter S. Thompson

  7. #7
    Member TWB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    3,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post


    Received the photo below in an email from a person in the lower-48. The picture purports to be of a woman shopping in Walmart in Alaska and claims that "no permit required in Alaska for either open (must be 18) or concealed (must be 21) carry."


    Is that true?


    Attachment 73133
    Unless there's a way to prove it was taken on Alaska, its speculative. I didn't see anything obvious in the pic that could back that.

    To the question, no. You do not need a permit for open or concealed carry. If you do choose to get a permit, you then carry reciprocity to carry in other states.
    We do not go to the green woods and crystal waters to rough it, we go to smooth it. We get it rough enough at home; in towns and cities; in shops, offices, stores, banks anywhere that we may be placed

  8. #8

    Default

    Do you or your friend happen to have her phone number..........???

  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,416

    Default

    http://dps.alaska.gov/statewide/Perm...sing/inAK.aspx

    Alaska Statutes Alaska Statutes 11.61.190 through 11.61.220 describe conduct with a weapon that is criminal. There is no prohibition against carrying a concealed weapon so long as the prohibited behaviors regarding the carry are respected:
    • The person is 21 years or older.
    • The person is eligible to own or possess a handgun under state and federal laws
    • The firearm is legal.
    • Upon contact with a peace officer, the person immediately informs the officer about the weapon, and allows the officer to secure the weapon for the duration of the contact.
    • The person does not carry the weapon if they are intoxicated or impaired by alcohol or controlled substances
    • The person does not carry the concealed weapon in certain places:
      • In someone else's home without their specific knowledge and permission
      • In any place where intoxicating liquor is sold for on-site consumption, except a restaurant and the person does not consume alcohol beverages
      • In or around any public or private K-12 school or on a school bus without the knowledge and consent of the school's administrator. (weapons may be unloaded and locked in the trunk of a car or secured in a locked container)
      • In or around a child care facility. (weapons may be unloaded and locked in the trunk of a car or secured in a locked container)
      • In a courthouse, court room, or office of the court system or justice related agencies
      • In domestic violence or sexual assault shelters.

    Alaska's laws do not apply to federal property, offices, installations, or places under federal jurisdiction. Such places can include national parks, military bases, federal court buildings, space rented by federal offices, airports, or airport terminal areas. Please consult with the appropriate federal agency before deciding if weapon carry or concealed carry is permitted.The owners or management of facilities, including such places as hospitals, universities, gymnasiums, or private property, may restrict or deny concealed carry on their premises. Failure to comply while on their property could violate trespass statutes.


    http://www.dps.alaska.gov/Statewide/...dhandguns.aspx
    A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and donít have one, youíll probably never need one again

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 0321Tony View Post
    If I am correct I believe there are three states that do not require a permit for concealed cary. Alaska and I think the other two are Arizona and Wyoming
    It's a little more complicated than that. For instance, Washington requires a CWP unless one is participating in or traveling to (or from) an outdoor activity such as hunting, fishing or hiking

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.060

  11. #11
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default

    Can't be Alaska. There's nowhere in this state you can find Orowheat bread for only $3.99 a loaf. If the tag said $5.99, I'd believe it was AK.

    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  12. #12
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    She has a tan so I'll say Arizona over Alaska
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  13. #13
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,216

    Default

    Photo was from a Time Mag piece in 2010 about open carry in California: http://www.time.com/time/photogaller...158678,00.html
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  14. #14
    Member .338-06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post


    Received the photo below in an email from a person in the lower-48. The picture purports to be of a woman shopping in Walmart in Alaska and claims that "no permit required in Alaska for either open (must be 18) or concealed (must be 21) carry."


    Is that true?


    Attachment 73133
    Well yeah, Marcus being going on for a while now. I've noticed most Alaskans don't bother about it, or cover up. Oddly enough, for years Vermont was the only state that allowed 'permitless' or Constitutional carry. People I knew who lived in New Hampshire could only seem to refer to people in Vermont as 'Those hippies'.

    Store owners can still ask people who are carrying to leave.

    Yikes! That woman is wearing a Sherpa holster. Just Say NO to Sherpas!
    I may be slow, but I get where I'm going!

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snyd View Post
    http://dps.alaska.gov/statewide/Perm...sing/inAK.aspx

    Alaska Statutes Alaska Statutes 11.61.190 through 11.61.220 describe conduct with a weapon that is criminal. There is no prohibition against carrying a concealed weapon so long as the prohibited behaviors regarding the carry are respected:
    • The person is 21 years or older.
    • The person is eligible to own or possess a handgun under state and federal laws
    • The firearm is legal.
    • Upon contact with a peace officer, the person immediately informs the officer about the weapon, and allows the officer to secure the weapon for the duration of the contact.
    • The person does not carry the weapon if they are intoxicated or impaired by alcohol or controlled substances
    • The person does not carry the concealed weapon in certain places:
      • In someone else's home without their specific knowledge and permission
      • In any place where intoxicating liquor is sold for on-site consumption, except a restaurant and the person does not consume alcohol beverages
      • In or around any public or private K-12 school or on a school bus without the knowledge and consent of the school's administrator. (weapons may be unloaded and locked in the trunk of a car or secured in a locked container)
      • In or around a child care facility. (weapons may be unloaded and locked in the trunk of a car or secured in a locked container)
      • In a courthouse, court room, or office of the court system or justice related agencies
      • In domestic violence or sexual assault shelters.

    Alaska's laws do not apply to federal property, offices, installations, or places under federal jurisdiction. Such places can include national parks, military bases, federal court buildings, space rented by federal offices, airports, or airport terminal areas. Please consult with the appropriate federal agency before deciding if weapon carry or concealed carry is permitted.The owners or management of facilities, including such places as hospitals, universities, gymnasiums, or private property, may restrict or deny concealed carry on their premises. Failure to comply while on their property could violate trespass statutes.


    http://www.dps.alaska.gov/Statewide/...dhandguns.aspx
    I found something very interesting today. This website (and the information posted) is misleading. Ok, background first. I'm an engineer and I read code books all the time. Part of my job is to read, interpret, and then defend my positions on various codes and standards. As such, I tend to geek out a little bit when it comes to the law. Call me sick, but it is what it is.

    So I was reading the Alaska Revised Statutes today and found a very interesting bit of info. The official revised statute 11.61.220 currently reads:

    a) A person commits the crime of misconduct involving weapons in the fifth degree if the person
    (1) is 21 years of age or older and knowingly possesses a deadly weapon, other than an ordinary pocket knife or a defensive weapon,
    (A) that is concealed on the person, and, when contacted by a peace officer, the person fails to
    (i) immediately inform the peace officer of that possession; or
    (ii) allow the peace officer to secure the deadly weapon, or fails to secure the weapon at the direction of the peace officer, during the duration of the contact;
    I know, you may be thinking, yeah? so? But pay close attention to the end of the line (i). And then compare that to the one above. Notice in the ARS it says "or" but in the DPS above it says "and". That's a critical difference. There is a difference in the logical requirements between an "or" statement and an "and" statement. In order for an "or" statement to be satisfied, any of the listed qualifications can be met. Any. For an "and" statement to be satisfied, all of the qualifications must be met.

    So the state law is that you must:

    1) inform the officer
    OR
    2)allow them to secure the weapon
    OR
    3)secure the weapon at the direction of the officer

    Meet any of the 3 conditions and you are satisfied the law. But the DPS (and btw the Anchorage ordinance also is written the same) goes this way:

    1) inform the officer

    AND

    2)allow them to secure
    OR
    3)secure the weapon at the direction of the officer.

    You have to do 1) AND either 2) or 3). That is a more stringent requirement under the law. Also, Alaska state law says that no municipality may enforce a law that is more strict than the state law. Which means the Anchorage ordinance is in violation of state law.

    Of course, this is the latest version of the ARS 11.61.220 that I can find from 2012. If it's been revised since, I don't know.

    Bottom line is, this is the type of technicality that we as gun owners should probably know. It may come in handy some day.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mobius View Post
    I found something very interesting today. This website (and the information posted) is misleading. Ok, background first. I'm an engineer and I read code books all the time. Part of my job is to read, interpret, and then defend my positions on various codes and standards. As such, I tend to geek out a little bit when it comes to the law. Call me sick, but it is what it is.

    So I was reading the Alaska Revised Statutes today and found a very interesting bit of info. The official revised statute 11.61.220 currently reads:



    I know, you may be thinking, yeah? so? But pay close attention to the end of the line (i). And then compare that to the one above. Notice in the ARS it says "or" but in the DPS above it says "and". That's a critical difference. There is a difference in the logical requirements between an "or" statement and an "and" statement. In order for an "or" statement to be satisfied, any of the listed qualifications can be met. Any. For an "and" statement to be satisfied, all of the qualifications must be met.

    So the state law is that you must:

    1) inform the officer
    OR
    2)allow them to secure the weapon
    OR
    3)secure the weapon at the direction of the officer

    Meet any of the 3 conditions and you are satisfied the law. But the DPS (and btw the Anchorage ordinance also is written the same) goes this way:

    1) inform the officer

    AND

    2)allow them to secure
    OR
    3)secure the weapon at the direction of the officer.

    You have to do 1) AND either 2) or 3). That is a more stringent requirement under the law. Also, Alaska state law says that no municipality may enforce a law that is more strict than the state law. Which means the Anchorage ordinance is in violation of state law.

    Of course, this is the latest version of the ARS 11.61.220 that I can find from 2012. If it's been revised since, I don't know.

    Bottom line is, this is the type of technicality that we as gun owners should probably know. It may come in handy some day.
    I see what you are saying there. I am right with you as far as reading technical specifications (engineer here as well). What might play into this, though, is that is you don't comply with the first item (inform the officer), then they are not given the opportunity to get to the 2nd or 3rd item. If you don't inform them that you have a concealed weapon, then how would you expect them to either secure the weapon for you or direct you to secure it yourself. For sure, the "and" would eliminate any grey area and looks like it would be the best fit for the intended purpose, but could be viewed as not necessary in the eyes of some.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anchskier View Post
    I see what you are saying there. I am right with you as far as reading technical specifications (engineer here as well). What might play into this, though, is that is you don't comply with the first item (inform the officer), then they are not given the opportunity to get to the 2nd or 3rd item. If you don't inform them that you have a concealed weapon, then how would you expect them to either secure the weapon for you or direct you to secure it yourself. For sure, the "and" would eliminate any grey area and looks like it would be the best fit for the intended purpose, but could be viewed as not necessary in the eyes of some.
    I agree with that. It's a technicality for sure. The way I see it is you could use it as a defense against "You did not tell me immediately, so you broke the law." Case to explain: You get stopped. You forget to inform. During the stop the officer determines that you have a loaded gun. You're response is "Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you. How do you want me to handle it." Probably not a issue with every officer, but assume you get the one who had a bad day and really wants to stick it to you. He busts you saying "you did not immediately inform me." Now you're hit with Class B misdemeanor. I would say you take the defense that the law does not require you to immediately inform if you then proceeded to allow one of the other 2 upon discovery of the firearm. At least that's the technicality I would try to use. I'm not saying that go into the stop with this defense in mind, only if you have been dinged by it because you accidentally forgot.

    No matter what the law says, it's pretty obviously NOT what law enforcement is being taught. And at the moment, the officer is going to enforce the way they were taught.

    What's more disturbing really is that the DPS website is blatantly misleading by not posting option 3) at all. In essence the DPS is saying you have to inform and you HAVE to surrender your firearm. There are no other choices. But the law is clear that the officer does not need to take possession of the firearm so long as he is comfortable with the manner in which you secure it. BUT, based on the DPS website, I'd be willing to guess that is not what the officers are told.

    (PS, not that I'm about to argue with an officer about the law during a traffic stop, that's just stupid.)

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mobius View Post
    I agree with that. It's a technicality for sure. The way I see it is you could use it as a defense against "You did not tell me immediately, so you broke the law." Case to explain: You get stopped. You forget to inform. During the stop the officer determines that you have a loaded gun. You're response is "Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you. How do you want me to handle it." Probably not a issue with every officer, but assume you get the one who had a bad day and really wants to stick it to you. He busts you saying "you did not immediately inform me." Now you're hit with Class B misdemeanor. I would say you take the defense that the law does not require you to immediately inform if you then proceeded to allow one of the other 2 upon discovery of the firearm. At least that's the technicality I would try to use. I'm not saying that go into the stop with this defense in mind, only if you have been dinged by it because you accidentally forgot.

    No matter what the law says, it's pretty obviously NOT what law enforcement is being taught. And at the moment, the officer is going to enforce the way they were taught.

    What's more disturbing really is that the DPS website is blatantly misleading by not posting option 3) at all. In essence the DPS is saying you have to inform and you HAVE to surrender your firearm. There are no other choices. But the law is clear that the officer does not need to take possession of the firearm so long as he is comfortable with the manner in which you secure it. BUT, based on the DPS website, I'd be willing to guess that is not what the officers are told.

    (PS, not that I'm about to argue with an officer about the law during a traffic stop, that's just stupid.)
    I have only had the need to inform an officer of a concealed handgun once. I was stopped for having a tail light out (really surprised anyone is stopped for that with so many people driving around with headlights and taillights out, but that's beside the point). I chose option number one and informed him before he could even start talking. He didn't have any issue with it and never even brought up the issue of securing it (either him or me). He just let me know the problem and we went our separate ways. Maybe he was taught correctly that he does not have to secure it if he doesn't feel a need to or he didn't care about that particular thing at that time, not sure. I agree that they need to have the same, and correct, information posted if they are going to post anything. It just leads to confusion when partial and/or incorrect information is posted.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anchskier View Post
    I have only had the need to inform an officer of a concealed handgun once. I was stopped for having a tail light out (really surprised anyone is stopped for that with so many people driving around with headlights and taillights out, but that's beside the point). I chose option number one and informed him before he could even start talking. He didn't have any issue with it and never even brought up the issue of securing it (either him or me). He just let me know the problem and we went our separate ways. Maybe he was taught correctly that he does not have to secure it if he doesn't feel a need to or he didn't care about that particular thing at that time, not sure. I agree that they need to have the same, and correct, information posted if they are going to post anything. It just leads to confusion when partial and/or incorrect information is posted.
    Probably the vast majority of stops are like this. BTW, I'm not anti-LEO at all. I know they have a tough job and really deserve a lot of respect. The only caveat is that when there is a bad LEO (which is rare, but does happen) they can be very dangerous to innocent people and cause a LOT of confusion and bad feelings. Unfortunately, they tend to be the focus then and people only hear about the bad. Just wanted to be clear that I was not trying to disparage any LEO's in my previous comments.

    (Wish I could go back and edit my post #17. I re-read it and noticed I made some assumptions that were not fair. I shouldn't assume that anyone is told something without knowing for sure. That was my fault, apologies.)

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    629

    Default

    OK, after another 2 or 6 readings... LOL. I think I found my mistake. The law is written such that if don't satisfy the requirements, you are in violation. That's an important piece I overlooked. I was reading it as if you are ok if you satisfy the requirements. Let me explain:

    a) A person commits the crime of misconduct involving weapons in the fifth degree if the person(1) is 21 years of age or older and knowingly possesses a deadly weapon, other than an ordinary pocket knife or a defensive weapon,
    (A) that is concealed on the person, and, when contacted by a peace officer, the person fails to
    (i) immediately inform the peace officer of that possession; or
    (ii) allow the peace officer to secure the deadly weapon, or fails to secure the weapon at the direction of the peace officer, during the duration of the contact;
    So law goes that you commit the crime if the following are true:

    1) 21 yrs or older
    AND
    2)knowingly possessing a deadly weapon other than a pocket knife
    AND
    3)concealing it
    AND
    4)and when contacted by LEO you fail to:
    a)inform the officer
    OR
    b)allow the officer to secure the weapon or secure it at the officers direction

    So I was reading it from the wrong angle. The "or" here is that you have violated the law if you fail to inform OR you don't allow them to secure it.

    That being the case, the law then does in fact require that you inform. The DPS is reading it from a you're ok as long as you do these things. So, as they say in sports, upon further review I had it wrong before and now I retract what I said... LOL.

    Sorry to waste the time here guys. But at least for me it was good to go through the intellectual exercise.

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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