Army General bans OFF BASE concealed carry in Alaska

F

F4GIB

New member
Concealed Carry in Alaska OK unless you’re in the Army!
FROM: alertslist@firearmscoalition.org

The US military has long maintained rather strict rules about privately owned firearms on their bases but the Commander of the US Army in Alaska has taken gun control in the military to a whole new level – both on base and off.

Last November Major General Charles H. Jacoby Jr., the Commanding General of US Army Alaska, put out a three-page policy statement outlining the most draconian firearms registration, storage, and transportation rules imaginable. These restrictions apply to all personnel living on post, including service members, their families (civilians, and other civilians living in base housing and carry serious penalties for failure to comply.

Recently General Jacoby took his gun control scheme a step farther by releasing a policy statement forbidding any US Army Alaska personnel to carry a concealed weapon any time, anywhere, on post or off post regardless of Alaska law to the contrary.

The Policy Statement can be found at:
http://www.usarak.army.mil/policies/PUBS-ACROBAT/USARAK_Policies/CGCOFS POLICY STATEMENT 20.pdf

No exceptions, no excuses, no appeals.

This outrage must be answered immediately!

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!!!

Please take a moment to send a note to your Representative and Senators, the Pentagon, and this very confused General.

PLEASE FORWARD this information to everyone on your e-mail list and especially to other local and national gun groups that should be responding to this outrage.

Here are addresses you might find useful:

General Charles Jacoby
Commander, US Army Alaska
724 Postal Service Loop #5000
Fort Richardson, AK 99505-5000

General Peter J. Schoomaker
Chief of Staff of the Army
1500 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310-1500

Mr. Chris Cox
Director NRA-ILA
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030
 
I think I would like to see a bit more verification on this before I assult the inbox of my legislators.

Anyone else seen anything about this?
 
I dont like it. That said, being in the military is different. You are subject to the UCMJ 24/7 as well as Civilian laws (when off post). You must obey any orders given, oral or in policy, from superiors, unless you can prove the order is unlawful. That will be the crux of this issue. The policy will need to be challenged as unlawful. IMO, the best people to contact would the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate for the Alaskan Command, then for the US Army. It would not hurt to contact Congress Critters and the Media. The more attention on this issue, the better.
 
I believe that is why he's changed it from his November policy. He has no control over dependants off base. It's always been and always will be illegal to carry concealed on base whether you live in base housing or not. He did his homework this time and defined everything so there was no barracks lawyer trying to trump him. It sucks, but he's pretty much within his command rights to order it. Our base commander has ordered that no one will have more than 3 alcoholic drinks in an evening no matter if it's in your home, in a bar or at a unit function. I don't drink, but I think it's pretty silly for him to try and control a totally legal action off of his installation, but he got the jag's seal of approval. He'd also come off like an assclown in the media if one of his troops used a CCW to save his life or better yet someone else's life and was the local hero then this guy tried to prosecute him for exercising his second ammendment rights.
 
Yep Yep

Being in the Military is getting a little tighter every moment... I'm not sure how to make someone understand that isn't in the military or never has been... But the Higher Up's are pushing for a Better image or something like that, I think they want us walking around in Suit and Ties by 2008 :D :D

My command has given a direct order to not get into a Car if you have had one drink. This includes Dinners lasting more than a hour. Doesn't matter if you have had one drink of Alchole you can not get behind the wheel of a car for the rest of the night.

Of'Course no Ammo or Guns on base that are not regeistered with the Armory and you must call ahead and inform base secruity you are bringing your Weapon in a PoV.

Anyone ever seen a Off-Limits List for your Base/Command, I was really suprised. Half the places I used to go where off-limit's

And I wouldn't worry to much about General Jacoby, most of the time things like this get blown over and forgotten in a month or so and people go right back to what they where doing... It's the only way for the High ups to feel like they are doing something.... Once the next Knee-Jerk thing comes up no one will remeber this.
 
Per my military expert...totally unenforceble...but at least the general "did something"


WildbutstillneedssomelettersAlaska
 
I don't know about "totally" unenforceable. Certainly enforceable as to specific MILITARY individuals who get caught violating a lawful direct order. Interesting what would happen if a military dependent was "caught" in posession of a weapon off-base. Would the General prosecute the military parent?

And of course it's ALASKA so no fishing for salmon with your .44 mag in your belt holster under your waders. Otherwise you could get NJP.
 
he better br paying them civilians overtime if he is giving them rules for after duty hours...and off base.
 
The question is, is it within said general's lawful power to issue a command that directly violates constitutional and states rights, to personnel when OFF BASE?

I am suddenly unable to protect myself when OFF BASE because general so and so said so? I can't have 'x' amount of drinks per night in my OFF BASE home, while not on duty?

I have trouble seeing this as lawful at all. Someone care to show me something in the UCMJ which says these types of orders are lawful?
 
Interesting what would happen if a military dependent was "caught" in posession of a weapon off-base. Would the General prosecute the military parent?
Click to expand...

Nothing would happen. He has no authority over civilian dependants off of his installation. Even on his installation all he can do is ban them from his installation and detain them for the local authorities. I always thought they had alot more "power" than they do, but after my wife became a DOD cop and I started asking questions and looking things up they are pretty limited as to what they can do with a civilian. In most but not all cases all that can be done is ban them, turn them over to local authorities and file a complaint with the civilian police. She used to complain about it being a pain in rear everytime she made a civilian DUI or drug stop because that meant she had to drive 30 miles to civilian court instead of going to the JAG on base for the trial.
 
The military can order you to do pretty much whatever and as long as it's not Unlawful which doesn't cover a whole hell of alot there is nothing you can do about it if you are under the person doing the ordering....

He can order you to live on base or not Drink or not carry a weapon off base, or not drive 2 wheeldrive vehicles on Thursday, whatever has long as he can prove it's for the greater good of the mass's....

When you start getting into O-6 and up I notice they just plain think different.... I'm not sure what happens to them but I've seen it over and over again....

Has for depends theres not really crap he can do to them... I remeber they tried to order me to make my Girlfriend come to a Pre-Deployment meeting. One of Happiest moments of my life was relaying the Message from her to my Div O.... Since I didn't say she did. :D :D :D :D I wasn't gonna make her go and she didn't want to go...
 
As for military members the CG has full authority to make such an order for the military.

Whether one considers it unenforceable or not, if a member of the military gets caught he can be tried under the UCMJ, and sentenced as the court will under that code. No doubt he would be found guilty of disobeying a lawful order.

Jerry
 
I have trouble seeing this as lawful at all. Someone care to show me something in the UCMJ which says these types of orders are lawful?
Click to expand...

He's not ordering you to do something illegal (i.e. steal) so it's a lawful order. You are under his command 24/7 on or off the installation so he can give a lawful order that applies during your "off duty" time. In the last 19 years I've seen skydiving, scuba diving, motocross racing, bull fighting, and wrestling banned just to name a few. But as someone else posted, the general feels like he did something for the safety of his troops and in a month or two it fades away because someone else will do something stupid or unfortunate depending on your view and that will be his new focus. Unfortunately one of the disadvantages many outside the military don't realize is that you give up many rights/freedoms when you enter. That's right you give up the very freedoms you're defending. It's a prosecutable offense to make desparaging remarks against the president, it's been prosecuted and the defense lost.(1st ammendment) You can not carry a concealed weapon on installation even with a state issued permit.(2nd) This poses many problems for those who live in base housing since to be legal you have to stop your car offbase, unload and case your weapon while sitting in the car, place it in the trunk before you can drive on base. For some unknown reason the military doesn't realize it would be much safer if you were to simply leave your weapon in it's holster and drive to your base house and put it away in a safer environment instead of risking an accident inside your car along the road. Some bases won't even let you store weapons in your base house. Luckily I've never had this problem. When I lived in the barracks I stored them in the armory, but installed trigger locks which created a stink until I showed the NCOIC my 1911 with a firing pin installed which was funny since I had the one that belonged in it in my pocket. If you live in base housing or the barracks your commander or 1st Sgt can do "inspections" with no other reason than "health and welfare" there doesn't need to be a complaint against you.(4th) Those are the three that are most common. But as they say it's a volunteer force and if you don't like it don't volunteer...........the second time. You have to take the good with the bad and understand how the system works.........or doesn't work in some cases.
 
Has for depends theres not really crap he can do to them... I remeber they tried to order me to make my Girlfriend come to a Pre-Deployment meeting. One of Happiest moments of my life was relaying the Message from her to my Div O.... Since I didn't say she did. I wasn't gonna make her go and she didn't want to go...
Click to expand...

Had a 1st Sgt call my wife and tell her she needed to report for a mandatory wives meeting. He wasn't too thrilled when she told him to go f%$# himself she wasn't one of his troops and the only place she was reporting to was her job. He hassled me a bit until I let him know that was between him and her and he was free to call her and tell to come in so they could talk about it. He declined and I never got any phone calls at the house that weren't for me and related to my work:D
 
I ran this past my Army JAG who has extensive experience as a military trail & defense counsel, military trail judge, and Court of Military Appeals judge. His opinion is that the CC portion is unlawful and uneforcable, as it criminalizes an action that is legal under both state and federal statutes.

He also opined (gotta love lawyers!) that within in CONUS, it rises to a violation of the Constitution.

It will interesting to see how this one pans out.
 
Sometimes Sr. Officer do strange things. Reminds me of the time we were at NTC in California. The new Battalion Commander decided he wanted all the Humvees to be parked next to the fence and designated it as the parking area. Most of the Sr. NCOs advised him against it due to theft problems. People could climb the fence :eek:

Next morning his driver goes to get the Humvee, hops in it hits the igniton switch..nothing happens :eek:

seems someone stole his starter :D

the designated parking area was changed..lol

So sometimes even when they are advised against doing something, even they have to find out the hard way.
 
So the soldiers in Alaska can fight, kill and die to protect the Constitution, but they can't exercise the rights they have under said Constitution... nice.:barf: Sounds like "The General" should be issued a wholehearted invitation to GFY:D

I've seen the protection details for General officers - 4 enlisted guys, each with M16's and undoubetedly the General carrying concealed. This was stateside during peacetime (late 80's). Nowadays, you can bet it is at least that, or more.

So here we are in a time of war, with terrorists who will attack and kill stateside given half a chance and soldiers are forbidden to have the means to protect themselves off base. Moral of the story? If you are not a General, your life is expendable.

Absolutely sickening.
 
This General's orders regarding concealed carry off base are almost certainly unlawful since they are contradictory to Alaskan law. A competent JAG could probably prove it.
 
As I suspected Striker has hit the nail on the head...This cannot be enforced

JAG will not uphold a position that is constitutionally not legal. Not to mention that it is also locally legal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top