Army General bans OFF BASE concealed carry in Alaska
- Thread starter F4GIB
- Start date
DonR101395
New member
Playing devil's advocate.........He hasn't ordered anyone to do anything illegal. There is no legal requirement for you to carry a concealed firearm. Therefore he's not banning you from doing something you are legally required to do. I know "shall not be infringed" the precedence is already there. They infringe on your rights if you live in base housing since it's a federal installation. If you think that the military has the same constitutional/legal rights as Joe citizen think again. The catch all phrase is "prejudicial to good order and disipline". I've spent a good amount of time in the military as well as a good ammount of time in my younger days on the other side of "prejudicial to good order and disipline". I think it's silly and he would have a hard time enforcing it, but at this time in the military nothing comes out unless the JAG has already looked at it and decided they could prosecute it. They may not win, but they are willing to try. Part of my job is writing regulations at the Major Command level and everything we put in writing is sent through the JAG before it can be published. You can't even bust someone for breaking a curfew unless you've written it and they acknowledge that they've read it, telling them they have a curfew isn't enough anymore. It's gotten ridiculous, but too many bright young kids have gotten lawyers after they did something stupid. Instead of taking their licks and chalking it up to a lesson learned, they've learned that a lawyer can get them out of everything except DUI, drugs and murder. And even drugs are getting harder you damn near have to catch them with a needle in their arm and take a picture then have it witnessed.
At any rate, I hate to see someone get in any trouble over bs like this but I would like to see him try to prosecute it. Could be interesting.
At any rate, I hate to see someone get in any trouble over bs like this but I would like to see him try to prosecute it. Could be interesting.
newworldCurmudgeon
New member
Hmmm this concerns me
Well Y'all got me to reply, and I know I won't ask for an assignment to Alaska.
If I were stationed in Alaska, I would violate this policy. It is a risk I would take on, however, if and when any UCMJ came up, I would turn down the Article 15, and take the court marshal, secondly I would get a civilian lawyer to augment my military lawyer.
Now I would not carry on post, totally different story.
How about this quote
"Eating at McDonalds, Wendy's, BK, Pizza Hut, Etc represents a significant risk to the safety health and welfare of this command. Accordingly, all Soldiers assigned or attached to USARAK
are prohibited from eating at all fast food establishments in public places off of all USARAK posts."
Or
"Deploying to Iraq by USARAK Soldiers represents a significant risk to the
safety and welfare of this command. Accordingly, all Soldiers assigned or attached to USARAK are prohibited from deploying to Iraq"
Of course if you wanted to get around the letter of this policy you could just open carry
Well Y'all got me to reply, and I know I won't ask for an assignment to Alaska.
If I were stationed in Alaska, I would violate this policy. It is a risk I would take on, however, if and when any UCMJ came up, I would turn down the Article 15, and take the court marshal, secondly I would get a civilian lawyer to augment my military lawyer.
Now I would not carry on post, totally different story.
How about this quote
"Eating at McDonalds, Wendy's, BK, Pizza Hut, Etc represents a significant risk to the safety health and welfare of this command. Accordingly, all Soldiers assigned or attached to USARAK
are prohibited from eating at all fast food establishments in public places off of all USARAK posts."
Or
"Deploying to Iraq by USARAK Soldiers represents a significant risk to the
safety and welfare of this command. Accordingly, all Soldiers assigned or attached to USARAK are prohibited from deploying to Iraq"
Of course if you wanted to get around the letter of this policy you could just open carry
I am surprised to have to inform you that most military personnel are considered cannon fodder. This has been the position of all senior officers for thousands of years. Military personnel are expendable. BTW, the laws which govern the military are NOT the same as those you are familiar with. The Constitution doesn't apply AT ALL.
Any higher ranking officer can order someone to do anything so long as it is not an illegal act or prohibits one from performing a legally required act (prohibiting someone from obeying a court order for example). This means that your commanding officer can order you to fully, completely, and in writing, waive all of your Federal Constitutional rights in any civilian court or action. And you'd have to as the order would be lawful. They'd have to have a supportable reason, but the order would be lawful if given.
What I find strange is that most soldiers in our military have almost no weapons training and there is no mandatory weapons proficiency requirement. Nor is there any program in which military personnel are ordered to gain weapons proficiency or even familiarity. Most soldiers have about 1 hr of weapons training in basic and that's it for the duration of their career. Even if it lasts 20 years. The exception would be marine and army personnel but those are not even half of all military personnel. Over half of our military is prohibited from using and posessing weapons in peace time but in time of war they hand 'em out and you'd better know how to use it.
Is that stupid or what.
DonR101395
New member
In part true, in the air force it depends what mobility weapons catagory you're in A, B, or C. A qualifies every 6 months, B every 15 months, C every 24 months. B used to be 12 months, but budget cuts ammo shotages etc. Then it depends on the unit you're assigned to and how much training ammo you're alotted. For example with the unit I'm in now I've shot more in 8 years than I shot the previous 11. Last week I shot close to 2000 rounds. On an average months I shoot 500 rounds at work at 500-1000 on my own dime. In the last year I've been to 2 shooting schools and going to another in June all on Uncle Sam's dime. But I would say this is the exception rather than the rule. It's slowly changing which is one of the positives that came out of Iraq. They finally figured out that a short course 15 years ago don't cut it.
deriust said:
Beyond all this, doesn't anyone care to comment on the fact that military personnel are trained in the use of weapons, and some are directly responsible for the upkeep and use of weapons from bayonets on through the spectrum to nuclear missiles?! And this guy, this jerkoff general, believes that they need to be forbidden from using weapons of their own, for the protection of themselves and their families, while off base and having nothing to do with military service?!
How can a military general possibly be ANTI-GUN?!?! It is LUDICROUS!
-azurefly
spacemanspiff
New member
link usually requires registering, and does have popups.
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/7549775p-7461348c.html
Army tightens concealed gun policy for Alaska troops
DISCIPLINE: 8 incidents involving soldiers' personal weapons cited for decision.
The Associated Press
Published: March 20, 2006
Last Modified: March 20, 2006 at 02:36 AM
FAIRBANKS -- Soldiers based in Alaska are no longer allowed to carry privately owned concealed weapons, under a new U.S. Army Alaska policy.
The ban is in response to several incidents involving soldiers and weapons, officials said.
"In the last six to eight months, there have been a number of incidents involving soldiers and privately owned concealed weapons that indicated a need to look at this policy," said Maj. Kirk Gohlke.
Incidents include a fatal shooting in Fairbanks that led to the current trial of three Fort Wainwright soldiers, Gohlke said.
A jury is deliberating the fate of Lionel Wright, Freddy Walker and Christopher Cox, who are charged with second-degree murder in the August death of Alvin "Snoop" Wilkins. The soldiers have pleaded not guilty, claiming self-defense in using personal weapons during a confrontation that killed Wilkins.
Gohlke said there have been seven other instances involving Alaska soldiers and personal concealed weapons in Fairbanks and Anchorage. He did not comment on specifics.
The new policy states that "soldiers who fail to comply are subject to adverse administrative action or punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or both."
Military personnel and civilians also are prohibited from having or transporting a concealed weapon at any time at a military installation in Alaska under a policy that has been in place for some time.
Alaska law, however, is much less restrictive. In 2003, Gov. Frank Murkowski signed into law a bill that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns in public without a permit.
Joe Nava, a Fairbanks firearms instructor, said there are still benefits for getting a concealed firearm permit, although the state doesn't require it.
Permit holders are eligible to buy a gun from a dealer without a background check, are allowed to carry a concealed weapon in 29 other states and are entered into the police computing system as a permit holder.
Nava disagreed with the Army's new policy.
"The military is taking away (soldiers') ability to protect themselves off base and that's not right," Nava said.
Gohlke, however, said the policy applies only to concealed weapons, not weapons for recreation and hunting.
"Our interest here is simply to protect the health and welfare of soldiers and promote good order and discipline," Gohlke said. "The intent is not to restrict soldiers' rights."
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/7549775p-7461348c.html
Army tightens concealed gun policy for Alaska troops
DISCIPLINE: 8 incidents involving soldiers' personal weapons cited for decision.
The Associated Press
Published: March 20, 2006
Last Modified: March 20, 2006 at 02:36 AM
FAIRBANKS -- Soldiers based in Alaska are no longer allowed to carry privately owned concealed weapons, under a new U.S. Army Alaska policy.
The ban is in response to several incidents involving soldiers and weapons, officials said.
"In the last six to eight months, there have been a number of incidents involving soldiers and privately owned concealed weapons that indicated a need to look at this policy," said Maj. Kirk Gohlke.
Incidents include a fatal shooting in Fairbanks that led to the current trial of three Fort Wainwright soldiers, Gohlke said.
A jury is deliberating the fate of Lionel Wright, Freddy Walker and Christopher Cox, who are charged with second-degree murder in the August death of Alvin "Snoop" Wilkins. The soldiers have pleaded not guilty, claiming self-defense in using personal weapons during a confrontation that killed Wilkins.
Gohlke said there have been seven other instances involving Alaska soldiers and personal concealed weapons in Fairbanks and Anchorage. He did not comment on specifics.
The new policy states that "soldiers who fail to comply are subject to adverse administrative action or punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or both."
Military personnel and civilians also are prohibited from having or transporting a concealed weapon at any time at a military installation in Alaska under a policy that has been in place for some time.
Alaska law, however, is much less restrictive. In 2003, Gov. Frank Murkowski signed into law a bill that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns in public without a permit.
Joe Nava, a Fairbanks firearms instructor, said there are still benefits for getting a concealed firearm permit, although the state doesn't require it.
Permit holders are eligible to buy a gun from a dealer without a background check, are allowed to carry a concealed weapon in 29 other states and are entered into the police computing system as a permit holder.
Nava disagreed with the Army's new policy.
"The military is taking away (soldiers') ability to protect themselves off base and that's not right," Nava said.
Gohlke, however, said the policy applies only to concealed weapons, not weapons for recreation and hunting.
"Our interest here is simply to protect the health and welfare of soldiers and promote good order and discipline," Gohlke said. "The intent is not to restrict soldiers' rights."
Training would imply a lot of time and effort is put into weapons training and that they are proficient in their use and decision making as when to use them. That's not the case.
More accurately they are familiarized in weapons use under very strict and regimented circumstances with one or two range trips a year. Most soldiers have trouble on a 25 meter Zero Range.
This shortcoming has revealed its ugly self since the WoT and the military has been scrambling to get better training for its personnel by contracting civilian firearms instructors to teach soldiers and marines how to shoot and safe weapons handling.
With that said, I think the USARAK Commander has responded in the typical knee-jerk fashion antis are notorious for. Here they have three of their troops up on charges of second degree murder. If the charges are accurate then those soldiers need to pay the price for their bad decision making.
However, punishing or taking away the rights of others is poor policy. It's been shown to be poor public policy. It's poor military policy.