Army General bans OFF BASE concealed carry in Alaska

[F4GIB]

Concealed Carry in Alaska OK unless you’re in the Army!
FROM: [email protected]

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

 

[hoppinglark]

that's the way it works in the military.

MCAS Cherry Point had a rule that no one could operate a Motor Vehicle off base durring the hours of 0001-0400.

 

[Devonai]

Here's a link to the USARAK's own press release on the subject:

http://www.usarak.army.mil/AlaskaPost/Mar10Story2.asp

One key thing here that I can't confirm is whether or not MG Jacoby intends this to apply to soldiers who are off duty. Carrying firearms of any kind while under orders must be specifically described in those orders.

However, it sure sounds like he means to apply this rule to off duty soldiers. If so, it is an unlawful order and the soldiers are under no obligation to follow it.

Either way it demands a response, if for nothing then to force the USARAK to clarify the policy. Since I am a soldier in the same organization the only thing I can do is bring this up to my chain of command, but you can bet that I will do so formally.

 

[Thin Black Line]

The wording is a bit confusing. IMHO this applies to USAR soldiers who
are performing drill or official duties, epecially while in uniform. If someone
leaves post for lunch or are otherwise travelling while performing official
business, then they can't ccw even if it's off post. This does not look like
it would apply to someone who has a license to ccw when they are acting
as a civilian. The key wording is "public places off of all USARAK posts."

In any case, having a license to ccw does NOT give you any authority
whatsover to carry any kind of deadly weapon onto military property,
even in your home state, either in your car or on your person. Even a
cased firearm or a fixed-bladed knife left in your car is a BIG DEAL and
there are procedures that have to be followed with these. The only
people carrying on post are security contractors, military police, and
soldiers deploying/redeploying --and these are all OPEN carry. There's
other rules and exceptions which I won't delve into here.

 

[Maxwell]

US Soldiers in a time of war are being asked to disarm themselves?
Theres a bit more confusion here than in the wording.

 

[Lennyjoe]

Policy Statement 0-17, Privately Owned Firearms Policy, also prohibits anyone — military or not — from having or transporting a concealed weapon at any time on a USARAK installation.

Standard military policy. The weapon has to be unloaded, seperated from the ammunition and out of reach of the vehicle operator.

From the pdf policy letter.

Carrying concealed deadly weapons 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 carrying a concealed deadly weapon in public places off of all USARAK posts. All persons are prohibited from carrying concealed deadly weapons on USARAK posts
IAW USARAK Regulation 190-1.

I say that's a violation of ones constitutional rights.

 

[jd25q]

There are lots of violations of constitutional rights in the military. That's just how it is.

It's not an unlawful order, an unlawful order would be if I ordered you to do something that was against the law. By following this order the soldiers are not breaking any law.

 

[ArmedBear]

The constitutional rights of civilians take precedence. That means that there are some serious restrictions on anything that can turn into having armed US forces off-base, on US soil, when we're not under attack.

This does sound excessive, though. Any phrase like "while in uniform; while on duty; while coming to or leaving from the base, etc." would change the meaning of the policy. And should.

 

[Turk]

I wonder what the policy is for other Forts in the US concerning CCW.

Rights? The military is a little different animal over being civilian.

Turk

Remember to pray for our troops.

 

[WT]

I'd venture a guess that this policy was reviewed by JAG before issuance. I don't think I'd want to disobey an order from a 2 star.

There are some other practices that military personnel can't engage in while off base.

 

[ArmedBear]

I'd prefer that the military had a "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding CCW.

 

[Leatherneck]

If so, it is an unlawful order and the soldiers are under no obligation to follow it.

No, unfortunately it's a lawful order. Unless you subscribe to that antiquated idea that the fedgov cannot circumscribe a constitutional right.

Politics is the way to win this battle. Apply so much political heat to Jacoby's superiors here in Washington that they tell him to back off.

Damned liberals keep popping up in the surprisingest places. :banghead:

TC

 

[WayneConrad]

Doesn't Alaska permit open carry?

 

[Devonai]

So if the brass sends down a policy prohibiting me from reading the NIV Bible, that's a lawful order?

 

[DKSuddeth]

MCAS Cherry Point had a rule that no one could operate a Motor Vehicle off base durring the hours of 0001-0400.

I was at cherry point from 85 to 89 and never heard of that rule. When did that go in to effect? and why?

 

[LoadAmmo]

How can an Army Generals orders be valid OFF-BASE and OFF-DUTY?

So if he also said that US Army Soldiers cannot wipe their butts with toilet paper - but only pinecones it would be a lawful order OFF-BASE and OFF-DUTY?

 

[Cosmoline]

So if the brass sends down a policy prohibiting me from reading the NIV Bible, that's a lawful order?

Yes, absolutely. And you could well receive such an order in various circumstances. For example, if the local commander felt it might upset the sensibilities of local Muslims to see you reading from the Bible.

As far as this order, I don't really know how the devil it would be enforced off military property. Off base, out of uniform and on your own time there's no way anyone would know you're packing. It's not like the local LEO's are going to arrest you for it.

 

[dm1333]

Without getting into how I feel about this order, as long as you are in the armed forces orders are binding. It does not matter if you are off base or "off duty", until you have been discharged you are still subject to orders. A lot of younger people today are having a hard time believing that they are subject to Art. 15 proceedings because they brought discredit upon the service while they were off duty.

 

[Hacker15E]

There's no such thing as "off duty" in the military.

 

[dm1333]

I can tell you how it will be enforced Cosmoline. I have no way of stopping under 21 Coasties from drinking but the ones who violate that regulation usually manage to bring themselves to the commands attention. The same thing will happen with this order. Somebody will get caught doing something, the command will find out about and the first question they will ask is "were you carrying?"

I have some doubts about the whole issue. I'd like to see more paperwork than just that memo. I can think of plenty of memos I have seen or written that could be taken out of context if all you read was the one memo. There may be more to this than we know, or the guy who made the first post may have started a very long legal process. The reason why I have a hard time with this is that you don't give up your rights when you join the military. You may have some restrictions put on them, especially when it comes to freedom of speech, but the military can't take them away.

 

[Cosmoline]

That said, it's the responsibility of the citizens to smack the Generals around. They work for us, and they are beholden to us to justify their policies. I'm writing a letter on the matter right now. Forbidding concealed carry by soldiers in a state where every methhead is packing not only insults the honor of the servicemen, it puts them at risk of getting targetted. A uniform should not become a way of signalling "I HAVE NO IRON."

 

[Devonai]

Just because an order is lawfully issued doesn't mean the text is necessarily legal. Do you think the JAG office is infallible?

 

[Cosmoline]

How can you challenge it? Alaska's laws are trumped by federal regulations, including those promulgated by the military.

 

[Baba Louie]

How can you challenge it?

Have a local US Senator or two, maybe a Congressman or even a Governor (nah, nix the Governor... no relationship to Fed $$) call him up, or write to Gen Jacoby explaining the facts of life, re: Alaska, bears, bad guys, law-abiding CCW, Congressional Funding... that's the only sort of conversation that will be understood by anyone, at anytime.

Probably won't happen, unless a native Alaskan who is quite wealthy with a direct line to his/her US Senator has a CCW'ing son or daughter in the USA, stationed in AK.

Hey, there is now no burden of proof that an AK resident has had training or is a certified good guy (mug shot, fingerprints on file for the RIGHT reasons) and there is no evidence that the War on Terror has yet spread to Alaskan beaches & forests, or for that matter that hungry Alaskan Bears have taken a sudden liking to men and women in uniform...

'Sides that, liability is liability, these men and women are trained "killing machines" using bare hands and teeth if need be. And never forget, that you ARE EXPENDABLE when wearing Uncle Sam's green, khaki, blue or white, even at the expense of someone with higher rank making a decision, issuing an order and saving face.

Unless of course the money starts to talk...

 

[GruntII]

This isn't the same general that tried something similar at Ft Hood a few years ago is it?That Bozo got his fifth point of contact handed to him publically at least. Unfortunately the soldiers have no choice to carry off station with a ccw will jam them up.However it's a state not a foriegn country if a dependant wants to carry off post on a ccw he can't do a damn thing. I would say the Alaska's pro gun federal representatives need to be contacted.I also wonder what sonm eyoung PFC or Spec 4 has done to bring down the wrath of the general.