AMMO THROUGH CANADA

[TOMMY47]

Can ammo be carried from lower 48 to Alaska and back?
Thinking of shipping gun from Montana to Tok,AK. Would like to not need to buy ammo.
Can ammo be shipped?

[tonymull]

applegater wrote:
So if you travel the lower 48 with a firearm near you why is it hard too understand someone might want to do that while traveling thru Canada and in Alaska as well?

I think that's a valid point. Not my view, but their entitled. I don't feel the need for protection from humans and rarely from wildlife, but if an American wants to have a gun in Canada, it's not, except for rare exceptions, going to be a handgun...which is what most seem to think they need for humans.

[cruiserjs]

applegater wrote:
So if you travel the lower 48 with a firearm near you why is it hard too understand someone might want to do that while traveling thru Canada and in Alaska as well?

Why is it hard for you (and others) to understand that Canada is a sovereign nation and entitled to have you obey their lawss - even if you think your rights are eight!!

[tonymull]

Yes I've fished the 'Ferry' probably a hundred times. In the 80's no one ever had a gun over there, maybe one guy out of hundreds. Now every other fisherman is carrying. There are more bears in the area but it's really not dangerous. We used to stay over when the ferry stopped at night to get those couple of hours crowd free. Never took the gun or felt like I needed it. Moving up the Russian is different, especially above the falls, but not at the confluence. And I know what you mean about Canada, always feels safe. So does Alaska except for the occasional drunk with a pistol. I've had some close encounters with bears over the years but only once fired my weapon and then only as a noise maker. Might as well have had bear bangers or pots and pans to bang. I just think if you're taking a gun might as well take something useful.

[joe_b_]

Just wanted to add that the Canadian thoughts about guns goes way back in history. Whereas the Alaska gold camps such as Skagway, Nome, etc were wild lawless places because of no law enforcement, the Canadian camps such as Dawson, etc were policed by the Canadian police, the NWMP later named the RCMP. And they didn't allow guns to be carried in town for the most part. This attitude of a federal police force seems to me to be the reason why Canada never had the problems between the new settlers and the indigenous peoples of Canada. In our west, the gun became the answer to problems between the native Americans and the settlers. Early on the NWMP were sent into BC and Alberta to run American whisky sellers out of the provinces, which they did.
The US, on the other hand, made no attempts to protect the native Americans and worked at pushing them out of the way of the settlers that wanted the land and resources located on this land. The theory of Manifest Destiny at work in the US.

Being farther south, the US attracted a much larger group of immigrants than did Canada, farther north. Until a region/area became a state there was little US interest in law enforcement in those area. Whereas the US might send 8 or 10 federal marshals to an area, such as Oklahoma Territory or Indian Territory, Canada might send several hundred officers to where they were needed, actually before they were needed.

So Canada has a couple of hundred years of letting law enforcement take care of the problems. For the most part in the US, citizens were expected to handle problems themselves, hence the sheriff's posse in the US when numbers were needed, but in Canada the NWMP sent enough officers to handle the problem at hand.

Just two really different ways of handling similar problems.

[joe_b_]

In the lower 48, if you get into a questionable situation, the other person(s) will probably have a gun. In Canada this is not normally the case. Different laws and mind sets in Canada regarding firearms. To the best of my knowledge Canada doesn't have a problem such as we have with Chicago being one of the worlds largest outdoor shooting galleries.

In my 53 years of wandering around Canada, I have never felt the need for having a handgun for personal protection. Could change someday I guess. As a Colorado certified cop, there are many places in Denver where I wouldn't go at night unarmed, such as parts of the Five Points area.

Just like working as a personal security associate, being smart is much more important than being armed, IMHO. Whether a person is concerned with two legged or four legged critters, being smart and avoiding trouble is my first choice. Keep a clean camp and stay away from dump bears and bear problems tend to be few and far between. The same applies to two legged problems. If a person's gut feelings is saying to move on, probably best to listen to it.

[applegater]

So if you travel the lower 48 with a firearm near you why is it hard too understand someone might want to do that while traveling thru Canada and in Alaska as well?

[joe_b_]

Tony, I think taking a gun with them on their trip to Alaska, is part of the mystique, the adventure of thinking they are risking life and limb by being so brave and adventuresome, by making such a trip. Probably future history books will have them in the same chapter, as with Stanley looking for Dr. Livingston, in darkest Africa. The though of being attacked by a rabid penguin, a polar bear attacking their rental igloo, etc. is the same thinking that causes people to wrap chicken wire around the front of their vehicle, carry extra gas cans of fuel, etc. to rival those hardy souls that made the westward trek over the Oregon Trail of days gone by. No matter how many experienced travelers tell them they don't need guns in Canada or Alaska, unless going there to hunt, they want to believe the old urban myths of what it takes to drive to Alaska.

If you have ever been combat fishing on the Russian River on the Kenai, you know what I mean when I say you can spot the new military Gis, as they have they new pistol strapped to their waist, new camouflage clothing, new boonie hat,etc. Look like they are getting ready for a Force Recon patrol in the jungle. LOL I have asked several of them why they are fishing in the middle of several hundred fisherman and need a pistol. Could be a bear attack is the normal answer I get. I am getting better at not laughing out loud while talking to them.

Yes, I am a gun owner and my wife claims I have more than many small gun shops. Think she is exaggerating a bit, not much, but some LOL In the 25+ years I lived in Alaska, I made many trips into Canada with my airplanes. Alaska law requires all Alaska bush flights, non commercial, to carry survival gear and one of the required items is a firearm. My weapon of choice was a Ruger 22 cal auto-load handgun. Best meat gun I owned, to dispatch a spruce hen, a chicken or any of the other eatable small critters that I might encounter if I crashed my Super Cub in some remote location of Alaska. If I had the room, I might throw in my Model 70 rifle. But the Ruger pistol stayed in my plane all the time. Most of the time when I landed in Canada and declared the handgun, I was told just to leave it in the plane while I was in Canada. Of course they have the serial numbers of most/all of my firearms, both sides of the border share the same data base. Makes our life interesting at time when my wife and I are crossing the border. They have trouble believing me that I don't have a firearm on board.

One of my great fears in life is I am going to die, and my wife will sell my gun collection for what I have told her I paid for them. LOL In the Lower 48, I will often have a handgun with me, as most states/officers will honor my Colorado law enforcement, concealed carry permit. Seldom have a firearm on me, just handy. But I will store it before I go into Canada or Mexico, in the US and pick it up on the way back. This has worked for me for many years, in my 53 years of driving the Alaska Hwy.

[tonymull]

Sorry but I just don't see the point in paying to ship a handgun, risking a long and involved border search (they don't put stuff back together when they take it apart), not having a firearm if needed in BC, and then walking around with an ineffective gun once in Alaska. Costs $50 to cross with a shotgun and you can carry ammo with you, you have the gun when & if you need it in BC, and once in Alaska you have the go to firearm for bears.

[TOMMY47]

Just declare the ammo. That seems all that is necessary. If you are shipping the gun, show them that paperwork.
If that doesn't work for them , then they'll search. I'm going in a camper van. Much less to search.

[garyhaupt]

flasam wrote:
So, what is the procedure at the Canadian border if you are taking ammunition to Alaska? We are shipping a couple of guns to Alaska.

Have the product in an easily reached location, tell the agent and be prepared for a full on inspection as they search for the weapon(s). And don't be cranky about it...experience has taught border agents that having one item, often leads to the discovery of the other. It has also be shown that it doesn't matter what a persons occupation is or was...that many people 'forget' about the weapon.

Thinking about this..if you have a toad? what about dis-connecting, load the ammo into the toad and cross. There is far less to be searched in a small toad than the RV. If one was going to do this..you'd want to have the rv driven across ahead by minutes, of the tv. Get some distance between the two or they'll be tearing both apart. Maybe this is a bad idea...I am sure someone will point out the pitfalls.


Gary Haupt

[magic43]

LINK

[flasam]

So, what is the procedure at the Canadian border if you are taking ammunition to Alaska? We are shipping a couple of guns to Alaska.

[Crowe]

What use is a 40 in Alaska? Will just piss off a Griz or Bullwinkle, and the meth heads are of little concern to the summer traveller.

Not the subject of this conversation.

[EsoxLucius]

Yeah, but not better than a Ruger Redhawk and 300 grain hard casts.