If that's happening where you're at, then it MUST be happening up here in Alaska.
Only if you make it happen.
I wouldn't assume it. Alaska has a large number of people that go there to get away and may be more apt to ignore politics than play an active role.
It also has the highest percentage of any state in the nation that receives welfare, with a lot of the native population living on the government where many abuse alcohol and I would venture many have domestic violence issues that could disenfranchise them from caring about legal gun rights either way.
Wall Street got involved in the fishing industry reducing how much of it's generated wealth stays in Alaskan hands in the last decade.
In addition the amount of the money from the permanent fund dividend that all citizens get has been reduced with government taking a higher percentage to pay for government rather than give it directly to citizens from my understanding, not only not keeping it the same percentage but even legislatively limiting it.
(There is no mineral rights in Alaska, so oil companies have to pay, and a lot more of that money used to go directly into the pockets of the citizens rather than to fund inefficient government. Now government dips into those funds and gives less to the citizens.)
So there is a lot of pressures in the state that could turn it both liberal and anti-gun, and I wouldn't assume others will tow the line for keeping gun rights. The low population density and large animals that eat people is really all that state has on its side to preserve gun rights over other places. But as we see other places even the low population density benefit can be offset if you get a big enough urban center voting block that outvotes the rest of the state. Anchorage and enough native villages could have Alaska like California quicker than you may realize.
California was Alaska only 100 years ago, the frontier with Grizzly bears and Wolf packs and with more gun rights than most of the rest of the nation, including Castle Doctrine before that term even existed and the legal right to carry openly or concealed while it was banned on much of the east coast.
With concealed permitless carry ending in the late 20s under the pretense of reducing carrying by Asian and Hispanic minorities, and open carry ended by the Mulford act of 1967 (one year before prohibited persons of the GCA of 1968 would have disenfranchised any that were bothering government or having problems with police anyways.) to remove carrying by minorities, specifically blacks and Black Panthers.
So California was Alaska, and used race tensions to disarm the state. Reagan banned open carry signing the Mulford Act, and at the same time as president in 1986 then gave amnesty to illegals primarily living in CA starting the biggest voting block of hispanics that would never support limiting illegal or legal immigration and ultimately turning the state into predominantly Mexican in only a generation and creating a solid Democrat voting base that votes predominantly for the party that gives more financial assistance and social services.
Ronald Reagan a Republican caused a lot of what California became. It may be led by the San Francisco elite left based ideology (a city that even voted through popular vote to ban handgun ownership in the home not long ago and has intentionally eliminated gun stores from the city by making it too hard to operate), but that is not where the votes that they depend on come from. So don't put all your faith in Republicans either.
