Alaska

[Genghis77]

This is probably outdated as the information is some 25 years old:

Alaska seems to be wide open to carrying of weapons openly.

My understanding was that .338 Winchester Magnum was considered the minimum to be carried hunting in the field, due to bear encounters.

I also heard that hunters are required to be accompanied by hunters that have 3 years residence, unless they are themselves 3 year residents. Again. this law is because of bear encounters as well as the dangers of the land.

[tattedupboy]

According to the Alaska reciprocity map, Alaska does not honor any permits from other states. This is flat out UNTRUE. No permit is needed to carry a handgun either openly or concealed in Alaska, by whether you're a resident or a nonresident. Any adult nonfelon can carry in Alaska, so the map needs to be corrected to reflect that.

[Bill of Rights]

I think the idea, like VT, is that no permit is needed, thus none is recognized. It seems a little counter-intuitive to me, but that's why it shows at the top of the page (legal overview) that the state requires no permit for CCW and why lower, on the left side of the page, it describes a "gold star" Open Carry, fully pre-empted.

Hope that helps!

Blessings,
B

[tattedupboy]

I think the idea, like VT, is that no permit is needed, thus none is recognized. It seems a little counter-intuitive to me, but that's why it shows at the top of the page (legal overview) that the state requires no permit for CCW and why lower, on the left side of the page, it describes a "gold star" Open Carry, fully pre-empted.

Hope that helps!

Blessings,
B

That may be true, but Alaska does have permits and does have reciprocity with other states (including South Carolina, which only has reciprocity with 11 other states). So yes, despite not requiring a permit for CCW, Alaska not only honors permits from states with which it has reciprocity, but also unilaterally with all others. Therefore, I stand by my original statement that it is misleading for the Alaska page to say that Alaska doesn't honor other states' permits.

[VegasGeorge]

Wait a minute, I'm confused. Does Alaska require a permit to carry concealed, or not?

[tattedupboy]

Wait a minute, I'm confused. Does Alaska require a permit to carry concealed, or not?

No, a permit is not required for any adult nonfelon to carry concealed. However, Alaska does offer permits to its residents, which come in handy for reciprocity purposes when Alaskans travel out of state. However, within Alaska's borders, people can carry whether they have the permit or not.

[Bill of Rights]

I think the idea, like VT, is that no permit is needed, thus none is recognized. It seems a little counter-intuitive to me, but that's why it shows at the top of the page (legal overview) that the state requires no permit for CCW and why lower, on the left side of the page, it describes a "gold star" Open Carry, fully pre-empted.

Hope that helps!

Blessings,
B

That may be true, but Alaska does have permits and does have reciprocity with other states (including South Carolina, which only has reciprocity with 11 other states). So yes, despite not requiring a permit for CCW, Alaska not only honors permits from states with which it has reciprocity, but also unilaterally with all others. Therefore, I stand by my original statement that it is misleading for the Alaska page to say that Alaska doesn't honor other states' permits.

CCAdmin? The case is made... Thoughts?

Blessings,
B

[VegasGeorge]

Alaska does offer permits to its residents, which come in handy for reciprocity purposes when Alaskans travel out of state.

Wow, imagine that! A State that actually offers its residents something extra to help them carry their guns elsewhere. It takes my breath away! :shock:

[MeAgain]

That may be true, but Alaska does have permits and does have reciprocity with other states (including South Carolina, which only has reciprocity with 11 other states). So yes, despite not requiring a permit for CCW, Alaska not only honors permits from states with which it has reciprocity, but also unilaterally with all others. Therefore, I stand by my original statement that it is misleading for the Alaska page to say that Alaska doesn't honor other states' permits.

You are wrong.
Alaska does not honor permits because, NONE IS NEEDED

How can you honor something thats NOT NEEDED ?

so its NOT MISLEADING

If Im from Vermont and traveled to Alaska and has a concealed weapon, would I be arrested because I cant produce a CCW permit ?

of course not ............

[Bill of Rights]

I think the question is more one of comparison. If I say that Alaska or Vermont don't honor LTCs, it's quite a different meaning from saying that IL, CA, or Washington, D.C. don't honor LTCs.

I'd like to see it differentiated, at least, in showing on the map that if my journey takes me from IN, through IL, WI, MI, NH, VT, and back to IN, something making it clear that IL and WI both make carry a crime if I happen to be in a city (which is where I'm most likely to need it), vs. MI and NH, both of which recognize my LTC, to VT, where I can carry irrespective of government permission.

Blessings,
B

[tattedupboy]

That may be true, but Alaska does have permits and does have reciprocity with other states (including South Carolina, which only has reciprocity with 11 other states). So yes, despite not requiring a permit for CCW, Alaska not only honors permits from states with which it has reciprocity, but also unilaterally with all others. Therefore, I stand by my original statement that it is misleading for the Alaska page to say that Alaska doesn't honor other states' permits.

You are wrong.
Alaska does not honor permits because, NONE IS NEEDED

How can you honor something thats NOT NEEDED ?

so its NOT MISLEADING

If Im from Vermont and traveled to Alaska and has a concealed weapon, would I be arrested because I cant produce a CCW permit ?

of course not ............

Yes, it is misleading. As I said in my last post, Alaska has reciprocity agreements with other states. So even though residents of reciprocal states don't need to have their permits with them when they travel to Alaska, the fact remains that Alaska does issue permits (even though none are needed to carry within its borders, whether you're an Alaska resident or not).

Reciprocity means that the states have a formal agreement to recognize each other's permits. The fact that Alaska does not require a permit for an adult nonfelon to carry does not make me wrong. To be sure, the reciprocity agreements are in place for the protection of Alaska residents when they leave Alaska, but to say that it does not recognize other states' permits would be akin to comparing it to PRIL (People's Republic of Illiois) and PRDC, which both of can agree do not recognize other states' permits. I will continue to stand by my statement that the Alaska map is misleading, because it is literally placed in the same category as the people's republics of IL, CA, HI, NJ, DC, MA, and MD, among others, none of which recognize permits from other states.

If you were new to the world of CCW, reciprocity, and which states are free and which are people's republics, would you be able to differentiate between the AK and VT maps and the maps of the People's Republics on this site, when the maps for those two, just like the maps for the People's Republics all say that no out of state permits are honored? Of course you wouldn't. I liked how each state page on packing.org explained it; it would explain if a person holding a permit from a given state would be able to carry in another state via a reciprocity agreement, unilateral recognition, or without a permit at all, or not allowed to carry at all. This site makes no distinction between not requiring a permit at all (AK and VT) and not recognizing other state's permits (the people's republics), so it would be easy for the CCW novice not to know the difference.

In conclusion, I am absolutely correct when I say that all other states' permits, while not needed in Alaska, are honored, some via reciprocity agreements. The difference between Alaska and a state such as Florida or Indiana, is that in those states, one has to have the permit with them, and in Alaska you don't; also, Alaska is unique in that not having the permit with you will not get you arrested.

What say you, MeAgain?

[Bill of Rights]

Additionally, by that standard, IN has no reciprocity with anyone- We have unilateral recognition of any and all valid permits, and some other states have chosen to do likewise, but since our recognition is statutory, there are no official reciprocity letters.

Although, the question doesn't address "reciprocity" per se, but rather, "are permits honored". IN does, in fact, honor all valid permits, where AK doesn't much care if you have one or not, as I understand it (I've never been there.) Anyone from up that way or who visits there at all want to weigh in?

Blessings,
B

[tattedupboy]

Additionally, by that standard, IN has no reciprocity with anyone- We have unilateral recognition of any and all valid permits, and some other states have chosen to do likewise, but since our recognition is statutory, there are no official reciprocity letters.

Although, the question doesn't address "reciprocity" per se, but rather, "are permits honored". IN does, in fact, honor all valid permits, where AK doesn't much care if you have one or not, as I understand it (I've never been there.) Anyone from up that way or who visits there at all want to weigh in?

Blessings,
B

I'm a fellow Hoosier, and I happen to know that even though Indiana recognizes all valid permits, Indiana does have reciprocity agreements with other states (9 or 11 I believe), including FL, NH, GA, and NC, to name a few. While it is indeed true that the permits from those states are good in Indiana regardless of whether they honor Indiana's, it is equally true that our permits are good in those states because of a reciprocity agreement, not unilateral recognition. Just because a reciprocity agreement with another state is not required for a state's permit to be recognized here does not mean that Indiana does not have any reciprocity agreements.

[Bill of Rights]

I had either heard on a phone call with ISP Firearms division or read on a website that IN does not sign letters of reciprocity. I'm certainly willing, even happy to be proven wrong on this, however. Thanks for the correction-Do you happen to know a site where I might see one of those letters? (I want to be able, as you did, to say I know personally that it's true; that I've seen the letters.)

Thanks very much!

Blessings,
B

[tattedupboy]

I had either heard on a phone call with ISP Firearms division or read on a website that IN does not sign letters of reciprocity. I'm certainly willing, even happy to be proven wrong on this, however. Thanks for the correction-Do you happen to know a site where I might see one of those letters? (I want to be able, as you did, to say I know personally that it's true; that I've seen the letters.)

Thanks very much!

Blessings,
B

Actually, my knowledge about Indiana having reciprocity agreements came from the now defunct packing.org. That site had maps that differentiated between permits being honored via reciprocity agreements and those that were honored via unilateral recognition. I specifically remember Indiana's being honored via reciprocity in NC, FL, NH, and MI. However, when trying to search for information on existing IN reciprocity agreements, I came across this:

http://www.in.gov/isp/files/FirearmsFAQ.pdf

Pay particularly close attention to page 4, where it says that "the department" (whatever that refers to) does not keep track of which states recognize Indiana's permit. I've been looking around for several hours trying to find information on which states recognize Indiana's permit via reciprocity, but all I can find are lists of all states that recognize Indiana permits that make no distinction between reciprocal agreements and unilateral recognition. If I continue to come up empty in this search, I will contact the attorney general's office to obtain this information.