Friday, May 8, 2026
Home Blog Page 1620

Poll: No change in AK attitude on semi-automatics

POLLSTER IS WEAPONIZING OUR FIREARMS…

A poll released by Alaska poll-driver Ivan Moore last week asked some of us if we want to ban “assault weapons” in Alaska.

48 percent of his 761 survey sample said yes.

The media took the bit and ran with the story, never questioning why Moore used the term “assault weapon” to describe a semi-automatic rifle that is widely used in Alaska.

There’s no real news in that number, other than the fact that shootings at schools and night clubs over the past year did not alter the opinion of gun-toting Alaskans.

Why? Moore’s poll result is the same as the last one he conducted for the Alaska Dispatch News in late 2016, when he asked nearly the same question, but called the rifle something else: “Do you support or oppose a ban on the sale of semi-automatic weapons in Alaska?”

47.2 percent supported a ban in 2017. The polls have a margin of error of about 3.6 percent, he says.

(Note to Moore: Almost all handguns sold today are semi-automatic, and they are firearms, not weapons, unless used as weapons.)

A recent CNN poll reveals 53 percent of Americans want a ban on AR-15 semi-automatic rifles, and Moore’s poll shows that only five percent fewer Alaskans share that sentiment.

WHO WAS THE CLIENT FOR THOSE GUN QUESTIONS?

Ivan Moore’s current business model is to do a grab-bag poll that sells clients questions, because there are so few clients left in Alaska who can afford a $50,000 poll.

Those gun questions did not end up on the Moore poll by accident, nor would Moore simply throw a series of questions in for his own amusement.

Someone in Alaska paid for gun-related questions to be tested. There was money changing hands to get some information for someone to make a decision.

[Read: The Ivan Moore poll on gun attitudes, 2018: tony181gunfrq ivan moore gun survey]

The person who wants that information is in Anchorage, Must Read Alaska has learned. He’s a well-heeled Democrat with an interest in funding the current “youth movement” in Anchorage to restrict guns. Those youthful gun restricters will also reliably vote Democrat, so this is a two-for-one political action committee in the making.

But Moore’s poll will not give his client much comfort: Alaskans are not changing their minds on the Second Amendment, even after the tragedy in Parkland, Florida.

And then, there’s this:

SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES — THE SUBSISTENCE HUNTER’S CHOICE

The use of modern sporting rifles — semi-automatics with detachable magazines — has grown in popularity in recent years. The National Rifle Association says 25 percent of the rifles produced in the United States are AR-15s or similar semiautomatic styles.

In Alaska, that number is higher, with some firearm experts estimating that between 50-80 percent of Alaska rifle owners own a semi-automatic, some of which are AR-style in shape. The actual numbers are hard to come by, because gun owners keep this information private.

The semi-automatic users are primarily rural Alaskans, where these firearms are the rifle of choice for subsistence hunters who are hunting caribou, an animal where there is a multiple bag limit of five a day — or no limit, in some game management units. They also hunt marine mammals, like seals, with them.

In other words, Moore’s poll asked the urban telephone respondents if they want to ban semi-automatics.

He didn’t tell them that the ban would lead to the confiscation of guns that hunters use to feed their families.

It’s another indication that the poll is skewed on this question. How many of respondents knew that the AR-15 is simply a semi-automatic rifle — i.e., a subsistence rifle in Alaska — not an “assault weapon?” Do 48 percent of Alaskans want to take away the hunting rifles of Alaska’s indigenous people?

WHAT ELSE IS IN THAT POLL?

Alaskans are not seeing the whole poll, but Moore’s poll also revealed some other intelligence:

  • 49 percent support a ban on high-capacity magazines. Nationally, CNN says 63 percent favor the ban.
  • 67 percent support setting a mandatory age of 21 or older to own a gun. Nationally, CNN pegs it at 71 percent favoring an age-related ban. In Alaska, you must currently be 18 to buy a gun.
  • 45 percent say the laws about firearms sales should be stricter, while 53 percent say they should be less strict or left alone.
  • 45 percent of Alaskans support teacher’s carrying guns on campus.
  • 84 percent support a petition for judges to be able to confiscate guns.
  • 19 percent of Alaskans live in a household with a National Rifle Association member.
  • 67 percent of respondents say their household has a firearm. The number is likely higher, as people typically are reluctant to say.
  • 16.6 percent of respondents said they own a semi-automatic “assault weapon” like an AK-47 or AR-15. Again, the number is likely higher, but privacy weighs heavy on owners of guns.
  • 81 percent of respondents said they do not read the print edition of the Anchorage Daily News ever. Less than 7 percent read it every day.
  • 65 percent said they don’t read the online edition of the Anchorage Daily News — ever.
  • 70 percent of respondent do use the internet for news.
  • 27 percent of respondents claimed to be Republican, 14 percent Democrat, and 59 percent something else.
  • 37 percent said they are conservative, 46 percent moderate, and 17 percent progressive.

Of course, the real poll on guns in Alaska is the one taken at the cash register: 67 percent of Alaskans have a gun in the house, and many have more than one.

MOORE: NOT ALWAYS ON TARGET

The question for critical thinkers is whether that new Moore poll is accurate. Moore’s polls are not well-regarded due to their wildly inaccurate results.

For example, in 2014, just two weeks before the General Election, Moore said candidate Forrest Dunbar trailed Rep. Don Young by one point, 43-44. In a smaller sample, Moore had Dunbar winning handily.

Young won 52-41, nearly 11 points ahead.

Moore also sampled the race between Mark Begich and Dan Sullivan for Senate in late October, 2014, just days before the election. He predicted that Begich would win, 48-42 against Sullivan.

Even the New York Times got a tingle up its leg on that one, writing hopefully: “The state fell off the radar over the last few weeks because just about every unsponsored survey was showing Dan Sullivan, the Republican, in the lead …Then, on Monday evening, Ivan Moore Research showed Mr. Begich ahead by a modest margin.”

“Unsponsored” was the key word. Likely, Moore had a sponsor for his poll.

The final result was 48-46, with Sullivan winning over Begich and Ivan Moore ending up with an 8-point miss.

The only way people can judge whether a poll is any good is by looking at the pollster’s track record.

FiveThirtyEight.com looked at that track record and gave Ivan Moore a “C” grade, with 40 percent of races called correctly.

 

John Torgerson is interim co-chair of Denali Commission

4

(Sen. John Torgerson, Northern Gas Pipelines photo by Dave Harbour) 

Alaska’s congressional delegation today announced that former State Sen. John Torgerson of Soldotna will serve the Denali Commission as the  Interim Federal Co-Chair. The position is the person who runs day-to-day operations.

The appointment comes following a letter the delegation sent to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, requesting an interim federal co-chair as the Trump Administration vets candidates to fill the vacancy left by Joel Neimeyer, whose resignation took effect April 20.

“The Denali Commission plays a crucial role in the lives of Alaskans – especially to the health and economic development for those living in rural Alaska. John Torgerson’s vast experience in rural transportation and infrastructure, coupled with his wealth of knowledge in government small business, and budgeting will enable him to effectively meet the needs of the Denali Commission and the Department of Commerce,” said the letter from the Alaska delegation. “We have the utmost confidence that John will be a great fit to assist the Denali Commission during this time of transition as it continues its important mission of improving life in rural Alaska.”

For more information about Torgerson and the process for selecting a new Denali Commission Federal Co-Chair, view the letter sent by the delegation to Secretary Ross here.  

The commission was established by Congress in 1998 to fund economic development and infrastructure in rural Alaska and also serves as the lead agency to assist communities facing coastal erosion, flooding, and permafrost degradation threats. In the FY18 government funding bill, $30 million was allocated for the Commission to continue its critical mission of addressing infrastructure needs in rural Alaska.

Torgerson was elected to the State Senate in 1994 and 1998. Born in 1947, he has been a resident of Alaska since 1950.

Supreme Court hears ‘salmon vs everything’ ballot initiative

4

Is the salmon ballot initiative constitutional? The Alaska Supreme Court heard two sides of the question on Thursday.

The Office of Lieutenant Governor argued that the initiative takes away the appropriating authority of the Legislature and is therefore unconstitutional. But the Yes for Salmon lawyer argued that it does no such thing and should go to the voters as-is, as an exercise in direct democracy.

It will be up to the judges to decide if the ballot question, as written, has constitutional problems and if it can be altered to be constitutional. One of the sticking points is if portions of the question are deleted, do those who signed the original petition need to be consulted again to see if they’re still on board?

Joanne Grace, the attorney for the State, said the case presents two issues.

The first is that the initiative prohibits the use of anadromous fish habitat for anything that permanently displaces these fish. Anadromous fish include salmon, rainbow trout, dolly varden, steelhead, eulachon and a few others that dwell part of their life cycles in the ocean, but also in streams, rivers, and lakes, which include tributaries and wetland areas.

This set of laws being proposed, she argued, is unconstitutional because it is an appropriation of resources via the ballot box.

The second question is: Can the court simply delete the unconstitutional provision of the initiative? If so, she said “all that will remain is a process without any substantive standard, and that is a very different bill than what the petition subscribers signed onto.”

The state’s lawyer told the judges that if the initiative passes as written, development of large projects such as oil, gas, and mining, would end in Alaska because any large project will have an effect on fish habitat. It would, for example, deep-six Gov. Walker’s gasline.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s anadromous fish habitat map covers much of the state.

BALLOT INITIATIVE, AS WRITTEN

The ballot initiative is a summary of the complicated rule changes it would enact. Here’s the summary and question that voters would see:

An act providing for the protection of wild salmon and fish and wildlife habitat.

This act would amend Alaska’s fish habitat permitting law. The act would require the Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to issue permits for activities and development projects that have the potential to harm fish habitat. The act would exempt existing projects, operations, or facilities that have received all state and federal permits. The act would create fish and wildlife habitat-protection standards. The standards would address water quality, temperature, streamflow, and more. The act defines “anadromous fish habitat.” The act would allow ADF&G to apply the law to all habitat in Alaska that supports salmon or other anadromous fish. The act would provide for three types of permits for development in anadromous fish habitat. ADF&G could issue a general permit—a single permit that applies to many people—for certain activities. For other activities that require a permit, the act would establish a two-track permitting system. Minor permits would be issued for activities that have little impact on fish habitat. Major permits would be issued for projects that have the potential to cause significant adverse effects on fish habitat. The act defines “significant adverse effects.” The act would require ADF&G to avoid or minimize adverse effects through mitigation measures and permit conditions. It would provide public notice on all permits and a chance to comment on major permits. The act would also require ADF&G to deny a permit if the proposed activity would cause substantial damage to fish habitat. The act would create criteria, timeframes, and an appeals process for the permits. The act would allow ADF&G to respond to permit violations with tickets, civil fines, or criminal penalties. The act would repeal two current statutes. One is regarding mitigation from a dam. The other is regarding criminal penalties that are addressed elsewhere.

Should this initiative become law?

WHAT THE SUMMARY DESCRIBES IS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN LAW

The law that would change is much more detailed than what voters would see on the ballot, as seen in the summary above.

Unless voters read the underlying changes, they are not likely to understand just how far this law goes in prohibiting development of anything from docks to drilling. What is being proposed is a complicated set of statutes that the voters would be telling Fish and Game to follow, as found in the attached bill:

17FHS2 Bill Yes for Salmon

YES FOR SALMON – DIRECT DEMOCRACY

Valerie Brown, the attorney for the group “Yes for Salmon,” told the judges that 42,000 people had signed the petition and it was her hope that direct democracy “proceed to the ballot.”

Judging from the questions that Chief Justice Craig Stowers asked during the oral arguments on Thursday, it seems likely the state Supreme Court will uphold the lower court’s decision and voters will see the question on the November General Election ballot.

 

If you don’t own an account, Wells Fargo won’t take your cash

Planning to deposit cash in your elderly mom’s account so she can pay her bills in Gustavus or Fort Yukon? Not if it’s at Wells Fargo. You’d better be a joint owner of that account or take your cash elsewhere.
In a sign that the modern world is moving to a cashless economy, the bank with the most branches in Alaska is only going to accept cash deposits into a checking or savings account if it comes from an account owner or an authorized signer. The policy takes effect in Alaska in a few weeks and will change the way some rural Alaskans handle their banking.
Most people in rural Alaska have little access to banks, and some either mail their cash and checks into the city or have others bring them in for deposit. The inconvenience of not being able to have someone deposit cash for you extends not only to family members, but can be a challenge for those who are in an emergency and are not plugged into electronic banking.
Wells Fargo is changing its policy to address drug trafficking and other criminal activity, but one of the biggest impacts in Alaska may be to those who are barely scraping by or who live a largely subsistence way of life.
Here’s what people will need to do to bank at Wells Fargo under the new rules:
If a non-account owner needs to deposit money into your account, he or she can only use a check, cashier’s check, or money order. Or he can use a person-to-person payment like PayPal. Wells Fargo suggests people use Zelle, U.S.-based digital payments network owned by Wells Fargo and six other large banks. That still doesn’t solve how people get cash into their needy relatives’ accounts.
The ban only applies to personal accounts, not commercial accounts.
All customers will be required to provide identification to make any cash deposits. If you don’t have a Wells Fargo ATM or debit card, you may use a government-issued ID, such as driver’s license or passport. It’s unclear what good it does to show ID, unless the bank is also capturing that information for law enforcement agencies.
Several of the nation’s largest banks are getting ready to implement this rule, which is not required by the government, but Wells Fargo is rolling it out in a few states before going nationwide.

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, financial institutions are being required to crack down on money laundering, such as reporting transactions larger than $10,000. In 2014, Chase was the first big bank to stop taking cash deposits from non account holders, as its way to prevent money laundering.

The change from the time when banks were the place where you took cash to a place where cash is not welcome a sign that the coin of the realm is no longer gold, and it’s not even paper, except in the criminal world, where cash is still king.

Wells Fargo now has 46 branches in Alaska, including one each in Barrow, King Salmon, and Dillingham, where it’s the only bank in town, and other rural hubs such as Cordova, Kotzebue, Kodiak, Nome, Petersburg, Craig, Sitka.

In custody on terroristic threatening: ‘Godfather of metal’

5

Police have taken into custody a man accused of spraying with bear spray a group of activists training for nonviolent confrontations. Turns out, he’s a heavy metal rocker, whose band supposedly once opened for Metallica.

On April 21, a group of “resistance” activists, who were learning how to be arrested and possibly pepper-sprayed by police, got that lesson front-loaded when a man walked into the Church of Love on Spenard Road and opened up a can of bear spray on them. The participants were injured and had to evacuate the building.

Police reviewed video and then put out a warrant for Bret Maness, a 53-year-old rocker with a long rap sheet that includes domestic violence and a list of minor offenses.

Five years ago, Alaska Public Media featured him prominently in a short video about heavy metal rockers, when he said he was a “godfather” of heavy metal music in Alaska.

Maness faces multiple charges including Assault 4, Burglary 2, and Terroristic Threatening 1.

The Southern Poverty Law Center lists him as white supremacist in this story.

The group that was attacked was being trained by a teacher from the Anchorage public schools, and were getting ready for nonviolent confrontation in May, with protests related to various grievances. Most of those who attacked were white middle aged women taking part in the training that was led by high school teacher Soren Wuerth.

Alaska missing in multi-state effort to fend off climate change lawsuit

9

SAN FRANCISCO AND OAKLAND SUING OIL COMPANIES

BY CRAIG MEDRED
CRAIGMEDRED.NEWS

Fourteen oil-and-gas producing states joined Indiana to support the major oil companies as they fend off a climate change lawsuit by San Fransisco and Oakland.

Alaska is not among them.

Although the potential threat to state oil revenues is huge, the Alaska Department of Law says it isn’t participating because it never got invited to intervene. 

The two California cities want BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell to establish a fund to pay the costs of repairing local infrastructure that might be affected by global warming. The costs could be in the billions in California alone.

Chevron, the lead defendant in the case, tried to get the suit dismissed on the grounds it targets oil and gas production when the real issue in the climate debate is carbon dioxide emissions from the use of those fuels.

“CHEVRON’S LAWYER, SPEAKING FOR MAJOR OIL COMPANIES, SAYS CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND IT’S YOUR FAULT,” The Verge headlined after U.S. District Judge William Aslup held a March hearing.

Since then, more communities and counties around the country have trooped into the federal courts with lawsuits mimicking those filed by San Fransisco and Oakland. Boulder and San Miguel counties in Colorado last week sued Exxon Mobil and Suncor, a Canadian oil company, claiming the Western snowpack was shrinking, hurting the state’s water supply and agriculture, and threatening its $5 billion ski industry.

TEARING A PAGE FROM TOBACCO LAWSUITS

The litigation is similar to that filed against tobacco companies years ago. San Fransisco and Oakland argue the oil companies knew about global warming and yet continued to produce oil and gas in a way that constitutes “a ‘public nuisance’ that the federal judiciary should enjoin.”

To amend for willfully contributing to global warming, the pioneering lawsuit argues, the companies should be required “to fund a climate change adaptation program for San Francisco consisting of the building of sea walls, raising the elevation of low-lying property and buildings and building such other infrastructure as is necessary for San Francisco to adapt to climate change.”

The suit argues the oil companies “borrowed the Big Tobacco playbook in order to promote their products.”

[Read more at CraigMedred.news]

Bethel jury decides: Zero dollars to widow of smoker

1

A major case that started a decade ago between tobacco company Philip Morris and a woman from Marshall, Alaska, ended yesterday afternoon with zero dollars being awarded to Delores Hunter.

Hunter’s husband, Benjamin Francis, smoked Marlboro cigarettes, and Mrs. Hunter sued after his death 12 years ago, saying the corporation misled smokers.

The closing arguments on Tuesday and Wednesday focused on the value of Francis’ life, according to KYUK radio, and how much his widow would be owed, should damages be awarded: He lost his livelihood, the fish he would have brought home as a subsistence fisherman, he wasn’t bringing home a Permanent Fund dividend, and the other contributions he would have made to his family if he had not died, such as family chores. There were also mental distress damages being argued.

[Read background on case at KYUK radio]

In Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., Dolores Hunter filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Philip Morris. The essence of the case was that the cigarette manufacturer was committing fraud against tobacco users. But the plaintiff’s arguments went up in smoke with the jury within hours of the closing arguments.

In 2016, the case went before a jury in Bethel, and although jurors agreed that Phillip Morris had misrepresented the risks of smoking, they split 8-4 on whether Francis had relied on that information before smoking Marlboro Light cigarettes. It was a hung jury.

The case has national implications. Bethel has been known as a target community to try such cases because juries there historically have awarded large damages.

Quote of the day: Parish on the topic of ‘poor judgment’

1

“Sadly, it has come to light this week that the Legislature is even more broken than many of us had imagined. Our Republican Representative, Cathy Muñoz, has demonstrated where her values are. Her misplaced priorities and demonstrably poor judgment are emblematic of the failure of leadership in the Legislature.” – Justin Parish, Aug. 28, 2016, The Juneau Empire

Statement from Speaker Edgmon on Justin Parish sexual harassment

‘OUR CAUCUS TAKES ALLEGATIONS OF THIS NATURE VERY SERIOUSLY’

The House Speaker Bryce Edgmon today issued the following statement about Rep. Justin Parish:

Juneau – Speaker of the House Rep. Bryce Edgmon (D-Dillingham) has issued the following statement to respond to recent media reports documenting an allegation of sexual harassment against Representative Justin Parish (D-Juneau).

“Our caucus takes allegations of this nature very seriously. However, I wanted to provide some clarifying comments following yesterday’s report.

The Legislative Affairs Agency Human Resources (LAA HR) Manager, Skiff Lobaugh, on January 30, 2018, received a complaint from a local media outlet regarding an off-site allegation of sexual harassment concerning Representative Justin Parish and one of their employees. January 30 was the first time any issue was brought to me by our Human Resources Department. My conversations with the media outlet’s attorney were verbal in nature, and no documents were delivered to my office or the LAA HR Department. The media outlet investigated the complaint with full cooperation from the Alaska Legislature.

The media outlet’s human resources lawyer, after discussion with me and with the LAA Legal Services Director, proposed corrective action. After discussing the allegations with Representative Parish, and consulting with the Legislative Affairs Agency Human Resources Manager and Legal Director, the corrective action requested, which consisted of additional training, was implemented and completed. My understanding is that the corrective action requested by the employee’s lawyer fully addressed the concerns which had been raised. It was made clear to me through the media outlet’s lawyer, that the company was not seeking any further action, and in fact, did not want further steps taken.

We cooperated fully with all of the media outlet’s requests and were instructed that given the circumstances, an independent LAA HR investigation would be inappropriate; as the complainant was not a legislative employee, the allegation did not involve an event occurring in legislative space or at a legislative event, and since there was no employer-employee relationship.

The training requested by the company, in my opinion, and based on advice from LAA Human Resources Manager, Skiff Lobaugh, closed this matter. When the matter was closed, it was closed without a finding of harassment under the Legislative Council Sexual and Workplace Harassment Policy.

I’ve been meeting regularly with Representative Parish and have received no further complaints about his behavior. Again, I take allegations of this nature extremely seriously and, along with my colleagues in the Legislature, encourage anyone who has been mistreated to come forward. The Legislature’s Sexual and Workplace Harassment Policy has recently been updated and approved, and anything but strict adherence to that policy will not be tolerated.”

[Must Read Alaska’s original story here.]