It happened to soldiers in Alaska
http://www.usarak.army.mil/policies/PUBS-ACROBAT/USARAK_Policies/CGCOFS%20POLICY%20STATEMENT%2020.pdf
http://www.usarak.army.mil/policies/PUBS-ACROBAT/USARAK_Policies/CGCOFS%20POLICY%20STATEMENT%2020.pdf
Joining the Military could mean loosing your right to Carry
- Thread starter aeroscout
- Start date
- Status
Highland Ranger
Member
Seems odd.
Looks like they can open carry though . . . .
Looks like they can open carry though . . . .
Leatherneck
Member
This frosts my butt. Seems like a legal order, but I don't think Jacoby and I would get along very well. I thought we had outgrown "Nannyism" in the armed forces.
TC
TC
FPrice
Member
I would sure like to see the legal review behind this. The Army can certainly prohibit private firearms on base, but off base would be a different story.
Personally, I think it's really skirting the limits of legal order.
You could probably dispute it(do so before violating), since the order lists a reason:
In other words, he should be able to define 'significant risk' and prove it. For example, I'm required, even off base, to wear a helmet if I'd riding a motorcycle or bicycle. Command can back this up with all the accident reports. It's the same with drunk driving. It's the single largest source of deaths/disablments in the military.
If he manages to come up with one or two cases I'd turn around and point out every case of assault/murder/robbery as a potential 'wouldn't have happened if he'd been armed'.
Being Air Force, I'm likely not covered by this, not being in Alaska I'm definitly not. Being only a SSgt, not in command, there's not much I can do about it. It's up to those above and below him to fight this policy.
You could probably dispute it(do so before violating), since the order lists a reason:
In other words, he should be able to define 'significant risk' and prove it. For example, I'm required, even off base, to wear a helmet if I'd riding a motorcycle or bicycle. Command can back this up with all the accident reports. It's the same with drunk driving. It's the single largest source of deaths/disablments in the military.
If he manages to come up with one or two cases I'd turn around and point out every case of assault/murder/robbery as a potential 'wouldn't have happened if he'd been armed'.
Being Air Force, I'm likely not covered by this, not being in Alaska I'm definitly not. Being only a SSgt, not in command, there's not much I can do about it. It's up to those above and below him to fight this policy.
Phantom Warrior
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2003
- Messages
- 1,073
Leatherneck said:
*thinks of the weekly 'Safety Briefing' covering the same lessons he learned in fifth grade (don't drink and drive, don't do drugs, wear a condom)*
*thinks of all the risk assesments he played Soduku on at Graf. The ones that never changed, yet we got a new copy of every day*
*snicker*
*giggle*
BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA!
I hate to take such a serious subject so cavalierly, but for anyone to even suggest that the Army has outgrown Nannyism is hilarious. As long as superior officers and NCOs are held responsible for their Joes NO MATTER WHAT, regardless of whether they could have reasonably prevented the incident or not, the Army will be our nanny.
I can't get the .pdf to open, but someone needs to be calling their Congressman and/or IG right now.
P.S. Could someone post the document?
crazed_ss
Member
We had a thread about this before..
Anyone who's been in the military would recognize that this is a perfectly lawful order and any troops under this General's command would be compelled to follow it.
In the military, superiors can issue orders that are effect servicemen who are off duty and off base. For example, the Marines has standards for wearing civilian attire for God's sake... You can get in trouble for not shaving and wearing a green tshirt out in town if someone wants to take it that far.
The military also issues "off-limits" orders telling servicemembers where they can and cannot go. I've known people to get in trouble for getting too sunburnt to train. When you're in the military, they own you.. you're a piece of equipment, like a tank or F-18. The military will put all kinds of restrictions on you to protect their asset. Some of them make sense, some dont.
Anyone who's been in the military would recognize that this is a perfectly lawful order and any troops under this General's command would be compelled to follow it.
In the military, superiors can issue orders that are effect servicemen who are off duty and off base. For example, the Marines has standards for wearing civilian attire for God's sake... You can get in trouble for not shaving and wearing a green tshirt out in town if someone wants to take it that far.
The military also issues "off-limits" orders telling servicemembers where they can and cannot go. I've known people to get in trouble for getting too sunburnt to train. When you're in the military, they own you.. you're a piece of equipment, like a tank or F-18. The military will put all kinds of restrictions on you to protect their asset. Some of them make sense, some dont.
I think it only has to do with Public Affairs. How will it look if an off duty soldier shoots a civilian in self defense. It's terrible that a soldier can't carry a weapon for defense. I agree that this is probably a lawful order, but I hope someone disputes it before it affects all the branches or the rest of the Army.
You're right, here's the link to the other thread
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=188705&page=3&highlight=army
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=188705&page=3&highlight=army
Hkmp5sd
Member
If you're in the military, you gotta live with it. I used to get PO'd because the marines at the gate wouldn't let me off base because of "frayed" jeans. They were "frayed" on purpose. Didn't matter. Change clothes or stay on base. Can't let civilians see you so poorly dressed.
They control you 24/7. They don't have to let you go anywhere off duty.
They control you 24/7. They don't have to let you go anywhere off duty.
neoncowboy
Member
lol...joining the military cost you *all* of your rights.
Get in line and do what you're told!
Get in line and do what you're told!
zerosignal
Member
This is the exact reason why I am not re-enlisting, and can't wait until I'm discharged later this month.
I have the utmost respect for the military,and most of the people in it, but asenine rules like this have no place in military life. I do not agree with, "you join the military, you lose all your rights".
The constitution does not qualify any of it's amendments with, "not for military members" Yes, you are considered on duty 24/7, but you are not a piece of meat nor a 3 year old kid that needs a babysitter. If you do something stupid to prove you DO need a babysitter then that is an entirely different situation.
Our military used to be made up of "citizen soldiers", real people with inalienable rights. Now you're treated like a robot. I've done my service, and now I'm out of this nursery school masquerading as a branch of the military.
I feel sorry for all those that still have to put up with it.
I have the utmost respect for the military,and most of the people in it, but asenine rules like this have no place in military life. I do not agree with, "you join the military, you lose all your rights".
The constitution does not qualify any of it's amendments with, "not for military members" Yes, you are considered on duty 24/7, but you are not a piece of meat nor a 3 year old kid that needs a babysitter. If you do something stupid to prove you DO need a babysitter then that is an entirely different situation.
Our military used to be made up of "citizen soldiers", real people with inalienable rights. Now you're treated like a robot. I've done my service, and now I'm out of this nursery school masquerading as a branch of the military.
I feel sorry for all those that still have to put up with it.
Crosshair
Member
+1 zerosignal. I can't join the military for medical reasons, but others I know have mentioned similar complaints. Officers and NCOs being completely anal over the wrong things is a problem sometimes. Having strong leadership is a good thing and instills confidence. Having stupid/anal retentive/careerist leadership does not help.
I work in retail where things are somewhat similar in the fact that we have a chain of command. (Employees [I'm in this group] < Department Manager < Assistant Manager < Store Manager) Our store manager is a great guy and instills confidence in the employees and appreciates our efforts. Employees will listen to what he asks of us and go and get it done. However, there are a few of the assistant managers that are really anal, unappreciative, and do not respect the employees below them. They do not have the confidence of the employees and any orders they give are questioned and done with suspicion. Our store manager appriciates input by the employees. If an idea of his won't work or won't do what he wants, he will listen to constructive criticism and will often use the employees suggestion if it is better. The "problem" AMs don't listen to feedback and will insist that the job be done the way they want it. They will not admit that there might be a better way to do something. People try to avoid the "problem" AMs at all costs.
The "careerist" mindset needs to be removed and people who can lead need to be put in charge. Not all Officers in the military are bad, but we need to weed the bad ones out.
/Just my humble rantings.
I work in retail where things are somewhat similar in the fact that we have a chain of command. (Employees [I'm in this group] < Department Manager < Assistant Manager < Store Manager) Our store manager is a great guy and instills confidence in the employees and appreciates our efforts. Employees will listen to what he asks of us and go and get it done. However, there are a few of the assistant managers that are really anal, unappreciative, and do not respect the employees below them. They do not have the confidence of the employees and any orders they give are questioned and done with suspicion. Our store manager appriciates input by the employees. If an idea of his won't work or won't do what he wants, he will listen to constructive criticism and will often use the employees suggestion if it is better. The "problem" AMs don't listen to feedback and will insist that the job be done the way they want it. They will not admit that there might be a better way to do something. People try to avoid the "problem" AMs at all costs.
The "careerist" mindset needs to be removed and people who can lead need to be put in charge. Not all Officers in the military are bad, but we need to weed the bad ones out.
/Just my humble rantings.
WeedWhacker
Member
It's not such a big deal - by joining the military, you voluntarily give up some rights.
If the rumors are to believed about outfits like Seal Team Six (Red Team, or whatever they're called), it just wouldn't do to have your own special ops teams shot by a CCW soldier.
Also note that the order applies only to those under the command of the general. You transfer or separate, it no longer applies.
If the rumors are to believed about outfits like Seal Team Six (Red Team, or whatever they're called), it just wouldn't do to have your own special ops teams shot by a CCW soldier.
Also note that the order applies only to those under the command of the general. You transfer or separate, it no longer applies.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Funny thing...it isn't a Constitutional issue. As I recall, either by draft (which is Constitutional) or by volunteering (current military), inductees give up many of their rights while serving. Since the military is now all volunteer, then the folks in the military have voluntarily given up many of their rights.
Don't get all Constitutional when the matter is not because the Constitution is being violated in some manner, but because you gave up the rights yourself.
Other rights you have given up include freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In exchange, you get to serve the country, be under paid, get technical and/or fighting training, med care, food, and for at least part of your career, more PT than you would ever get at a health club, all with the benefit of having some nice man (usually) claim that he will be both your mother and father for a while (which really seems to blur the lines of the family unit, sexuality, and role models) which seems rather disturbing.
News Flash, you give up a whole lot of rights when you join the military. And yes, your CO can give you orders that apply when you are off base. This isnt a JOB where you go home at the end of the day and your off the clock. You are a soldier, always. If the guy wanted to order his men to wear red noses and clown shoes while off base, then thats what they would have to do, period.
zerosignal
Member
I don't agree that it isn't a constitutional issue.
Yes, the constitution provides for a draft, and yes, you do give up SOME rights when you join the military. The problem is, the constitution does not establish or provide for our current Uniform Code of Military Justice.
As everyone knows, any rights not specifically given to the federal government (of which all military but the guard is a part of) are reserved for the states, and more specifically, the people. In my opinion, since the constitution does not specifically say that the 2nd amendment, or any other amendment may be denied military members, then I still have the right no matter what any General says.
The truth of the matter is, 200 years ago, many military members provided their OWN weapons for use in the field. As recently as WW2, soldiers who were not issued 1911's were often known to buy their own for field use.
You say that I signed a contract when I joined, and must abide by any rule they make. My problem with that is, I should be able to sign up and serve my country without having to obey BS rules. Yes, I signed on the dotted line, but just because they then add something to my terms of service, doesn't mean I should automatically be required to obey it.
I liken this to some crazy general making a rule that says I now have no 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. Even military lawyers know that would be completely illegal. But they ARE allowed to take away my 2nd amendment rights? Where do you draw the line? You can't take the 5th, but you CAN take the 2nd?
That is simply flawed logic. Our founding fathers called them "unalienable rights" for a damn good reason. Unalienable is an uncompromising word, meaning under no circumstances may they be taken away. Not only may they not be taken away, a person can't even GIVE them away. Not through signing a contract, not through joining the military.
How about I sign a contract that says I'm not allowed to breathe air anymore? Breathing is a fact of life as a human being, and no dumb contract can make me stop doing it. The right to free speech, or to defend oneself is just the same as breathing.
"un·al·ien·a·ble - adj.- Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition"
Yes, the constitution provides for a draft, and yes, you do give up SOME rights when you join the military. The problem is, the constitution does not establish or provide for our current Uniform Code of Military Justice.
As everyone knows, any rights not specifically given to the federal government (of which all military but the guard is a part of) are reserved for the states, and more specifically, the people. In my opinion, since the constitution does not specifically say that the 2nd amendment, or any other amendment may be denied military members, then I still have the right no matter what any General says.
The truth of the matter is, 200 years ago, many military members provided their OWN weapons for use in the field. As recently as WW2, soldiers who were not issued 1911's were often known to buy their own for field use.
You say that I signed a contract when I joined, and must abide by any rule they make. My problem with that is, I should be able to sign up and serve my country without having to obey BS rules. Yes, I signed on the dotted line, but just because they then add something to my terms of service, doesn't mean I should automatically be required to obey it.
I liken this to some crazy general making a rule that says I now have no 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. Even military lawyers know that would be completely illegal. But they ARE allowed to take away my 2nd amendment rights? Where do you draw the line? You can't take the 5th, but you CAN take the 2nd?
That is simply flawed logic. Our founding fathers called them "unalienable rights" for a damn good reason. Unalienable is an uncompromising word, meaning under no circumstances may they be taken away. Not only may they not be taken away, a person can't even GIVE them away. Not through signing a contract, not through joining the military.
How about I sign a contract that says I'm not allowed to breathe air anymore? Breathing is a fact of life as a human being, and no dumb contract can make me stop doing it. The right to free speech, or to defend oneself is just the same as breathing.
"un·al·ien·a·ble - adj.- Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition"
Gray Peterson
Member
On top of me being unwelcome in the military for being what I am, I will not join an organization that controls my off duty behavior in this fashion. I don't willingly sign my life away to people who may become anti-second amendment bigots and strip me of my firearms rights at will like a common criminal, like this General Jackass...I mean Jacoby did.
Gee, If President Bush were truly "pro gun" and "in our corner", he would have made one phone call to Donald Rumsfeld and had this order reversed, but he hasn't lifted a finger.
Gee, If President Bush were truly "pro gun" and "in our corner", he would have made one phone call to Donald Rumsfeld and had this order reversed, but he hasn't lifted a finger.
tater_salad
Member
it's all really simple. we're here to preserve democracy, not practice it. if you don't agree with it, you don't have to join.
zerosignal
Member
I'm really glad that you think it's that "simple", but how about some facts to support your claim?
Just cause you heard that line from a movie or some gung-ho drill instructor doesn't make it so.
**EDIT** Just wanted to say, I'm currently in the military just like you. So believe me, I've heard all the recruiting speeches and taglines just like you have.
Just cause you heard that line from a movie or some gung-ho drill instructor doesn't make it so.
**EDIT** Just wanted to say, I'm currently in the military just like you. So believe me, I've heard all the recruiting speeches and taglines just like you have.
madmike
Member
I do not recognize it as a lawful order, and would challenge it, and if our troops were better trained these days, they'd challenge it to.
Ditto for Marines being told they can't have beards or wear green T shirts off duty and off post.
A commander has great discretion, but not unlimited, on post. He has far less discretion off post and less off duty when not in a war zone.
He cannot, for example, prescribe my diet if I am not on a specific medical profile. He cannot prescribe the manner in which I have sex. He cannot prohibit me from making political statements or supporting political positions of any type AS LONG AS I DO NOT USE THE APPEARANCE OF TITLE, RANK OR POSITION to do so. He cannot prescribe who I may or may not marry or associate with in public or private. He cannot prohibit me from driving a car (off duty) or even a motorcycle (Far more dangerous). He cannot prescribe that I wear a dress, a suit, spandex, etc.
He can prohibit attendance in certain establishments, on the grounds that they present an ongoing threat to discipline and order. He cannot prohibit patronizing all such establishments (Forex: barber shops in Korea often double as brothels. A list of prohibited establishments, or a description of the type of service prohibited in context, can be posted. Placing all barber shops off limits crosses that line).
The best way to handle this is for several people to politely contact the post public affairs officer and ask what "significant risk" is posed. Ask for the authority under which the post commander can issue the order regarding non-duty status in a public arena.
COs issue orders exceeding their authority all the time, and it's most common in the Army. Officers are not taught where their limits are, only what their responsibilities are. Those responsibilities are large, and the natural response is to grab as much authority as possible to go with it.
Personal opinion in context but not as a member of the armed forces, only as a private citizen: The General is wrong, and on this NON MILITARY issue clearly personally biased, ignorant and a fool, as well as a grand-standing poser.
Letters to the editor about how soldiers are endangered and easy marks for criminals and terrorists by being unable to defend themselves might help, too.
Considering the general has an armed escort of MPs available for any official travel and many personal functions...
Ditto for Marines being told they can't have beards or wear green T shirts off duty and off post.
A commander has great discretion, but not unlimited, on post. He has far less discretion off post and less off duty when not in a war zone.
He cannot, for example, prescribe my diet if I am not on a specific medical profile. He cannot prescribe the manner in which I have sex. He cannot prohibit me from making political statements or supporting political positions of any type AS LONG AS I DO NOT USE THE APPEARANCE OF TITLE, RANK OR POSITION to do so. He cannot prescribe who I may or may not marry or associate with in public or private. He cannot prohibit me from driving a car (off duty) or even a motorcycle (Far more dangerous). He cannot prescribe that I wear a dress, a suit, spandex, etc.
He can prohibit attendance in certain establishments, on the grounds that they present an ongoing threat to discipline and order. He cannot prohibit patronizing all such establishments (Forex: barber shops in Korea often double as brothels. A list of prohibited establishments, or a description of the type of service prohibited in context, can be posted. Placing all barber shops off limits crosses that line).
The best way to handle this is for several people to politely contact the post public affairs officer and ask what "significant risk" is posed. Ask for the authority under which the post commander can issue the order regarding non-duty status in a public arena.
COs issue orders exceeding their authority all the time, and it's most common in the Army. Officers are not taught where their limits are, only what their responsibilities are. Those responsibilities are large, and the natural response is to grab as much authority as possible to go with it.
Personal opinion in context but not as a member of the armed forces, only as a private citizen: The General is wrong, and on this NON MILITARY issue clearly personally biased, ignorant and a fool, as well as a grand-standing poser.
Letters to the editor about how soldiers are endangered and easy marks for criminals and terrorists by being unable to defend themselves might help, too.
Considering the general has an armed escort of MPs available for any official travel and many personal functions...
madmike
Member
Oh, and please stop with the "If Bush was a man he'd stop it" crap.
First, the President would have to be AWARE of this. Unlikely yet.
Then, he would have to address it through the chain of command to be professional about it. Takes a few days.
Of course, this matter is far more urgent than the war, the budget and the Mexican "invasion :."
Again: Contact the post PAO and politely hammer them on it. Local papers. NRA. Enough inquiries will draw attention to it. Any members in Alaska?
First, the President would have to be AWARE of this. Unlikely yet.
Then, he would have to address it through the chain of command to be professional about it. Takes a few days.
Of course, this matter is far more urgent than the war, the budget and the Mexican "invasion
:."Again: Contact the post PAO and politely hammer them on it. Local papers. NRA. Enough inquiries will draw attention to it. Any members in Alaska?
Nehemiah Scudder
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2004
- Messages
- 391
Seems easy enough.
Just remove all offbase access. Lock the base down for a bit.
It's hard to tell, but I can't see this situation happening except as a response to some incident or incidents. They CAN be very controlling, but usually aren't, for no reason.
Just remove all offbase access. Lock the base down for a bit.
It's hard to tell, but I can't see this situation happening except as a response to some incident or incidents. They CAN be very controlling, but usually aren't, for no reason.
- Status
