Hkmp5sd
Member
Escpecially an Ensign wearing a large Annapolis ring.
Joining the Military could mean loosing your right to Carry
- Thread starter aeroscout
- Start date
- Status
Escpecially an Ensign wearing a large Annapolis ring.
walking arsenal
Member
"We are the army!! You belong to us!! we are to to defend democracy not practice it!!!" 
The Dan in Black
Member
Ha! I can tell that ZS works in the 388th!
The thing that I've seen in my experience is that when someone does question too much, they are seperated. After being harassed a bit.
- D
Old Dog
Member
So a thread started about one loose-cannon general (not even at a CONUS military base) deciding he didn't want his troops packing off-duty devolves into a thread containing such asinine comments as:
Back on topic: in my experience (especially while on active duty in shall-issue states for more than half a 26-year career), no chain of command that I was ever aware of made any sort of attempt to curtail the off-duty carry rights of their soldiers, sailors or Marines. Only rule has always been, sorry, you just can't pack your personal handguns on base ...
LW said:
Finally, in over a quarter-century of active duty, I never felt as though my service "controlled my off-duty behavior" in any fashion (well, at least while stateside, admittedly, overseas can be a different story).
In my experience (at least in my branch), one is treated according to one's behavior.
Huh? I don't think so. One is separated subsequent to one proving conclusively that one cannot follow only a few simple rules: show up to work on time, most of the time; do as much of what you're told to do according to your ability (and believe it when I say the benefit of the doubt is almost always given to even those who aren't the sharpest tools in the box); at least try and look busy most of the time during working hours; render forth a modicum of respect (you know, even the occasional salute for an O-1 or the "Yes, Chief" or "Yes, Gunny") towards one's superiors, and finally, present a semblance of military bearing and attempt to not look the dirtbag, especially if you're in a more visible portion of the base ... It's not tough to survive at least one enlistment even if one doesn't commit to a career ...
Back on topic: in my experience (especially while on active duty in shall-issue states for more than half a 26-year career), no chain of command that I was ever aware of made any sort of attempt to curtail the off-duty carry rights of their soldiers, sailors or Marines. Only rule has always been, sorry, you just can't pack your personal handguns on base ...
LW said:
(and heavy sigh here) I never, ever felt I'd "signed my life away" to anyone. While on active duty and based for twelve years in the state of Washington, I got nothing but encouragement for being pro-2nd Amendment by my commanding officers and admirals. And yes, most COs are well aware that many in their commands engage in off-duty carry of personal weapons, at least up here in WA.
Finally, in over a quarter-century of active duty, I never felt as though my service "controlled my off-duty behavior" in any fashion (well, at least while stateside, admittedly, overseas can be a different story).
The Dan in Black
Member
So the drift doesn't go further, I'll PM you Old Dog.
- D
- D
walking arsenal
Member
Psyops
I dont need your dictionary definitions to quote my old Lt. Thanks though.
I dont need your dictionary definitions to quote my old Lt. Thanks though.
zerosignal
Member
"In my experience (at least in my branch), one is treated according to one's behavior."
Sir, I'm quite glad that you didn't have the same experiences that I've had, but as a retired veteran, you came from a completely different service than now exists.
Of course, every base and command is different. Some places have commanders who respect their troops, while others have ones that treat them like children. I respect that you have considerably more military experience than I, but you can't assume that since you didn't have the experiences I have, that I must be some type of troublemaker.
I'd like you to know that I have broken ONE, and only one rule since I have been in the service, and that rule was concerning a second amendment issue.
I take offense that a person that doesn't even know me could describe me with a statement like this:
"cannot follow only a few simple rules: show up to work on time, most of the time; do as much of what you're told to do according to your ability (and believe it when I say the benefit of the doubt is almost always given to even those who aren't the sharpest tools in the box); at least try and look busy most of the time during working hours; render forth a modicum of respect (you know, even the occasional salute for an O-1 or the "Yes, Chief" or "Yes, Gunny") towards one's superiors, and finally, present a semblance of military bearing and attempt to not look the dirtbag"
First off, you can ask anyone that has ever supervised me, I do exactly what i'm told when I'm told, and most times do it before I'm even asked. I've also been described as "the hardest worker in the shop" by every NCO that has ever been my boss. I am also utterly respectful with everyone above me. I was actually talked to by our Chief about another troops lack of respect, and what I thought his problem was. This is the amount of respect that I give and am given. I have also never failed to salute an officer, even when said officers try their best to turn their heads and ignore enlisted that attempt to salute them. I guess they are simply in too much of a hurry to give me the same respect that I give them.
I'd also like you to know that during my time on base here at Hill, I have been a runner up for First Term Airman of the Year, volunteered more than 200 hours my first year, was awarded multiple Airman of the Month/Quarter awards, and was first in my squadron for early promotion to Senior Airman/E-4.
I have been the epitome of a model Airman during my time in service, and the treatment that I have been given since I broke one rule has been exactly as Dan in Black described. Given his comments, I assume he knows the reputation of the 388th Fighter Wing. It is not a good one.
In the 388th, it is common to see officers chewing the asses of 26 year Chiefs in front of our young enlisted. Becoming an NCO used to mean that you received a level of respect, even from commanders. They knew that the effectivity of their force depended on their NCO's. In the 388th, most commanders give absolutely no credence to the opinions on their NCO's. They are treated pretty much just like a lowly E-1, but simply given more BS to do.
Giving an NCO "another program" to manage or "another troop" to supervise means absolutely nothing when they then micromanage every decision that said NCO makes.
That is why I uttered this "Asenine" comment as you call it:
"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 don't know the history of your military experience, and don't pretend to. I'm glad that you had no such problems, but please don't write off my experience because you assume I may be a dirtbag.
Sorry for going off-topic, but I had to make myself clear.
Sir, I'm quite glad that you didn't have the same experiences that I've had, but as a retired veteran, you came from a completely different service than now exists.
Of course, every base and command is different. Some places have commanders who respect their troops, while others have ones that treat them like children. I respect that you have considerably more military experience than I, but you can't assume that since you didn't have the experiences I have, that I must be some type of troublemaker.
I'd like you to know that I have broken ONE, and only one rule since I have been in the service, and that rule was concerning a second amendment issue.
I take offense that a person that doesn't even know me could describe me with a statement like this:
"cannot follow only a few simple rules: show up to work on time, most of the time; do as much of what you're told to do according to your ability (and believe it when I say the benefit of the doubt is almost always given to even those who aren't the sharpest tools in the box); at least try and look busy most of the time during working hours; render forth a modicum of respect (you know, even the occasional salute for an O-1 or the "Yes, Chief" or "Yes, Gunny") towards one's superiors, and finally, present a semblance of military bearing and attempt to not look the dirtbag"
First off, you can ask anyone that has ever supervised me, I do exactly what i'm told when I'm told, and most times do it before I'm even asked. I've also been described as "the hardest worker in the shop" by every NCO that has ever been my boss. I am also utterly respectful with everyone above me. I was actually talked to by our Chief about another troops lack of respect, and what I thought his problem was. This is the amount of respect that I give and am given. I have also never failed to salute an officer, even when said officers try their best to turn their heads and ignore enlisted that attempt to salute them. I guess they are simply in too much of a hurry to give me the same respect that I give them.
I'd also like you to know that during my time on base here at Hill, I have been a runner up for First Term Airman of the Year, volunteered more than 200 hours my first year, was awarded multiple Airman of the Month/Quarter awards, and was first in my squadron for early promotion to Senior Airman/E-4.
I have been the epitome of a model Airman during my time in service, and the treatment that I have been given since I broke one rule has been exactly as Dan in Black described. Given his comments, I assume he knows the reputation of the 388th Fighter Wing. It is not a good one.
In the 388th, it is common to see officers chewing the asses of 26 year Chiefs in front of our young enlisted. Becoming an NCO used to mean that you received a level of respect, even from commanders. They knew that the effectivity of their force depended on their NCO's. In the 388th, most commanders give absolutely no credence to the opinions on their NCO's. They are treated pretty much just like a lowly E-1, but simply given more BS to do.
Giving an NCO "another program" to manage or "another troop" to supervise means absolutely nothing when they then micromanage every decision that said NCO makes.
That is why I uttered this "Asenine" comment as you call it:
"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 don't know the history of your military experience, and don't pretend to. I'm glad that you had no such problems, but please don't write off my experience because you assume I may be a dirtbag.
Sorry for going off-topic, but I had to make myself clear.
carebear
Member
As far as CO control, the wearing of civilian clothing on leave and liberty is a privilege extended to enlisted Marines by the Commandant, it is not a "right".
In theory (and in practice for India Company, MCT Camp Pendleton, call it May 2001, because Hotel Company 2 weeks prior was a bunch of torn jeans and "Made in America/Tested in Japan" tshirt wearing ja's, but I'm not bitter) you can be required to wear Charlies to exit the base.
They may not track you down and enforce it out in town but they don't have to open the quonset and give you your jeans back either. You have to go into town and buy new gear. :banghead:
We in (or just out of) today's military, if we really examine what the book says, have a lot of privileges we take for granted.
In this case, if I lived out in town, I'd carry off base and deal with the consequences if I ever had to use it.
But then, one of MY old CO's on Elmendorf AFB (right next door to Ft. Rich, where our Marine RTC was located) told us that if the US government ever authorized UN troops to start seizing weapons from Americans he'd draw ammo from the ASP and open the armory and send us on our way.
In theory (and in practice for India Company, MCT Camp Pendleton, call it May 2001, because Hotel Company 2 weeks prior was a bunch of torn jeans and "Made in America/Tested in Japan" tshirt wearing ja's, but I'm not bitter) you can be required to wear Charlies to exit the base.
They may not track you down and enforce it out in town but they don't have to open the quonset and give you your jeans back either. You have to go into town and buy new gear. :banghead:
We in (or just out of) today's military, if we really examine what the book says, have a lot of privileges we take for granted.
In this case, if I lived out in town, I'd carry off base and deal with the consequences if I ever had to use it.
But then, one of MY old CO's on Elmendorf AFB (right next door to Ft. Rich, where our Marine RTC was located) told us that if the US government ever authorized UN troops to start seizing weapons from Americans he'd draw ammo from the ASP and open the armory and send us on our way.
spartacus2002
Member
This policy was in response to a drunken NCO popping some shots off thru his sunroof while driving.
Legal tried to tie it to "safety" as best they could, at the CG's request. It is tenuous at best.
I don't believe it's a valid order, because there is no nexus between a valid military purpose and the private conduct regulated (which is necessary for such an order to be valid and enforceable). HOWEVER, good freaking luck getting a panel at a court-martial to tell THEIR CG "we don't believe in your policy letter", particularly in today's "don't-stick-your-neck-out" Army.
Legal tried to tie it to "safety" as best they could, at the CG's request. It is tenuous at best.
I don't believe it's a valid order, because there is no nexus between a valid military purpose and the private conduct regulated (which is necessary for such an order to be valid and enforceable). HOWEVER, good freaking luck getting a panel at a court-martial to tell THEIR CG "we don't believe in your policy letter", particularly in today's "don't-stick-your-neck-out" Army.
zerosignal
Member
Spartacus, that's very interesting.
If some dumb NCO did fire some shots off, it has absolutely nothing to do with concealed carry at all. You dont have to have a CCW to shoot a gun off like an idiot.
This general thinks like every other anti-gunner. He denies rights to people that will have no effect on the root problem. Heavens, we can't punish the person who did the stupid thing now can we?
I really think Ben Franklin knew what he was talking about when he made the quote about giving up freedom for safety.
If some dumb NCO did fire some shots off, it has absolutely nothing to do with concealed carry at all. You dont have to have a CCW to shoot a gun off like an idiot.
This general thinks like every other anti-gunner. He denies rights to people that will have no effect on the root problem. Heavens, we can't punish the person who did the stupid thing now can we?
I really think Ben Franklin knew what he was talking about when he made the quote about giving up freedom for safety.
carebear
Member
http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~7244~3271592,00.html
Army tightens weapons policy
By MARGARET FRIEDENAUER, Staff Writer
A new U.S. Army Alaska policy penned this week forbids soldiers from carrying privately owned concealed weapons in public, despite being stationed in a state with one of the most liberal concealed weapons laws in the country.
The move, officials said, is in response to several incidents involving soldiers and their personal concealed weapons.
"In the last six to eight months, there has 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, U.S. Army Alaska public affairs officer.
Gohlke noted the trial of three Fort Wainwright soldiers currently unfolding in court. A jury is deliberating the fate of Lionel Wright, Freddy Walker and Christopher Cox, who are on trial for the August death of Alvin "Snoop" Wilkins. The three soldiers claim self defense in brandishing personal weapons during a confrontation that killed Wilkins.
Gohlke said there have been seven other instances involving U.S. Army Alaska soldiers and personal concealed weapons in Fairbanks and Anchorage although he couldn't comment on specifics.
According to the new policy, "Soldiers who fail to comply are subject to adverse administrative action or punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or both."
U.S. Army Alaska also prohibits anyone--military or civilian--from having or transporting a concealed weapon at any time on a USARAK installation, a policy that has been in place for some time.
But Alaska law is much less restrictive. Gov. Frank Murkowski in 2003 signed into law a bill that allowed citizens to carry a concealed handgun in public without a permit.
Included in the 2003 law is that local governments cannot change the state gun law to be more open or more restrictive, but the U.S. Army Alaska can enforce policies more restrictive than state law.
Local firearms instructor Joe Nava said there are still benefits of getting a concealed firearm permit, although the state doesn't require it.
Those that acquire a permit 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.
But while Nava encourages permitting, he doesn't agree with the Army's policy. He said it's a right given under the U.S. Constitution and state law for soldiers, like any citizen or resident of the state, to have and carry personal weapons.
"The military is taking away (soldiers') ability to protect themselves off base and that's not right," Nava said.
But Gohlke said the policy is specific only to concealed weapons and does not affect weapons for recreation and hunting.
The policy is meant to create a safer environment for soldiers and communities, not to infringe on personal rights.
"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."
Army tightens weapons policy
By MARGARET FRIEDENAUER, Staff Writer
A new U.S. Army Alaska policy penned this week forbids soldiers from carrying privately owned concealed weapons in public, despite being stationed in a state with one of the most liberal concealed weapons laws in the country.
The move, officials said, is in response to several incidents involving soldiers and their personal concealed weapons.
"In the last six to eight months, there has 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, U.S. Army Alaska public affairs officer.
Gohlke noted the trial of three Fort Wainwright soldiers currently unfolding in court. A jury is deliberating the fate of Lionel Wright, Freddy Walker and Christopher Cox, who are on trial for the August death of Alvin "Snoop" Wilkins. The three soldiers claim self defense in brandishing personal weapons during a confrontation that killed Wilkins.
Gohlke said there have been seven other instances involving U.S. Army Alaska soldiers and personal concealed weapons in Fairbanks and Anchorage although he couldn't comment on specifics.
According to the new policy, "Soldiers who fail to comply are subject to adverse administrative action or punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or both."
U.S. Army Alaska also prohibits anyone--military or civilian--from having or transporting a concealed weapon at any time on a USARAK installation, a policy that has been in place for some time.
But Alaska law is much less restrictive. Gov. Frank Murkowski in 2003 signed into law a bill that allowed citizens to carry a concealed handgun in public without a permit.
Included in the 2003 law is that local governments cannot change the state gun law to be more open or more restrictive, but the U.S. Army Alaska can enforce policies more restrictive than state law.
Local firearms instructor Joe Nava said there are still benefits of getting a concealed firearm permit, although the state doesn't require it.
Those that acquire a permit 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.
But while Nava encourages permitting, he doesn't agree with the Army's policy. He said it's a right given under the U.S. Constitution and state law for soldiers, like any citizen or resident of the state, to have and carry personal weapons.
"The military is taking away (soldiers') ability to protect themselves off base and that's not right," Nava said.
But Gohlke said the policy is specific only to concealed weapons and does not affect weapons for recreation and hunting.
The policy is meant to create a safer environment for soldiers and communities, not to infringe on personal rights.
"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."
carebear
Member
http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113%7E7244%7E3258038,00.html
Shooting death trial begins
By MARGARET FRIEDENAUER, Staff Writer
The shooting death of Alvin "Snoop" Wilkins Jr., early the morning of Aug. 14, 2005 came either from shots fired in anger or in self defense against a rap artist who took violent lyrics to heart, according to statements offered in state Superior Court Thursday.
The opening statements kicked off the the trial of Freddy Walker, 21, Christopher Cox, 19, and Lionel Wright, 22, who face charges of second-degree murder and first-degree weapons misconduct stemming from the altercation that left Wilkins, 25, dead. The three men have pleaded innocent and claimed self defense.
State prosecutor Elizabeth Crail opened by telling the jury it would hear testimony and see evidence that the three men were unprovoked, were caught with recently fired weapons and that the murder victim was armed only with an unloaded shotgun that was never fired.
But defense attorneys played up the rivalry between two rap groups and played some of Wilkins' rap recordings, peppered with explicit and violent lyrics, for the jury to digest. Susan Carney, attorney for Cox, said "Snoop"--as she referred to Wilkins throughout the proceedings--took the rivalry over the edge.
According to police reports, the dispute began in the parking lot of The New Sunset Strip nightclub where Walker and Cox had a confrontation with Wilkins over a bandana. Wilkins was an aspiring rap artist going by the stage name "Lil Coast" who worked at the nightclub and reportedly had gang ties. Walker, Cox and Wright--soldiers stationed at Fort Wainwright--were associated with a rival rap group dubbed, "Ground Up."
After driving away from the club parking lot, the dispute escalated when Wilkins and friend Joel Bruney confronted the three men near 25th Avenue. Shots were fired, Wilkins was hit, and Bruney took him to the Fairbanks Memorial Hospital emergency room, where he was pronounced dead shortly thereafter.
By that time, Walker, Cox and Wright had been detained at the Fort Wainwright main gate as they entered the post.
Crail told the jury to expect testimony that would support the claim that the three defendants were unprovoked in the shooting death of Wilkins. She displayed three firearms found in the soldiers' vehicle when they were stopped at the Army post; a 12-gauge shotgun, an AK-47 and a .40-caliber handgun. Crail said she could show that all three defendants had fired their weapons, while Wilkins, who she said had an unloaded shotgun, never fired during the altercation on 25th Avenue.
But Carney said it was Wilkins who was looking for a fight and emphasized her point by playing an explicit recording of Wilkin's music to the jury that specifically named "Ground Up."
The lyrics included lines like, "We'll lay you down and teach you homage" and "We'll put you six feet underground."
Carney went on to say the three defendants were simply enjoying a night out on the last weekend before their deployment to Iraq with the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team. The firearms found in the soldier's car had been used earlier that day for target shooting at the South Cushman shooting range.
Carney said the altercation began when Wilkins reportedly reached inside the car occupied by Cox and Walker, grabbed a bandana and set it on fire. She said the soldiers drove off from the club but were followed by Wilkins and Bruney to the area of 25th Avenue, at which point the shooting occurred.
"The state would like you to believe they, by defending themselves, that there was some illegal use of a weapon," Carney said.
Carney and attorney Geoffry Wildridge, representing Wright, said they would show that Wilkins threatened the soldiers and put them in fear of their lives to the point that the soldiers felt they had to defend themselves.
"They didn't expect Fairbanks to turn into Baghdad," Wildridge said. "They had every reason to believe they were going to be killed."
The prosecution presented several witnesses who were in the area of the shooting in August. Each testified to hearing shots that night. Some said they heard shotgun rounds and pistol rounds, and others said they could not specify what kind of firearms they heard.
The trial continues today and is expected to take several days.
Shooting death trial begins
By MARGARET FRIEDENAUER, Staff Writer
The shooting death of Alvin "Snoop" Wilkins Jr., early the morning of Aug. 14, 2005 came either from shots fired in anger or in self defense against a rap artist who took violent lyrics to heart, according to statements offered in state Superior Court Thursday.
The opening statements kicked off the the trial of Freddy Walker, 21, Christopher Cox, 19, and Lionel Wright, 22, who face charges of second-degree murder and first-degree weapons misconduct stemming from the altercation that left Wilkins, 25, dead. The three men have pleaded innocent and claimed self defense.
State prosecutor Elizabeth Crail opened by telling the jury it would hear testimony and see evidence that the three men were unprovoked, were caught with recently fired weapons and that the murder victim was armed only with an unloaded shotgun that was never fired.
But defense attorneys played up the rivalry between two rap groups and played some of Wilkins' rap recordings, peppered with explicit and violent lyrics, for the jury to digest. Susan Carney, attorney for Cox, said "Snoop"--as she referred to Wilkins throughout the proceedings--took the rivalry over the edge.
According to police reports, the dispute began in the parking lot of The New Sunset Strip nightclub where Walker and Cox had a confrontation with Wilkins over a bandana. Wilkins was an aspiring rap artist going by the stage name "Lil Coast" who worked at the nightclub and reportedly had gang ties. Walker, Cox and Wright--soldiers stationed at Fort Wainwright--were associated with a rival rap group dubbed, "Ground Up."
After driving away from the club parking lot, the dispute escalated when Wilkins and friend Joel Bruney confronted the three men near 25th Avenue. Shots were fired, Wilkins was hit, and Bruney took him to the Fairbanks Memorial Hospital emergency room, where he was pronounced dead shortly thereafter.
By that time, Walker, Cox and Wright had been detained at the Fort Wainwright main gate as they entered the post.
Crail told the jury to expect testimony that would support the claim that the three defendants were unprovoked in the shooting death of Wilkins. She displayed three firearms found in the soldiers' vehicle when they were stopped at the Army post; a 12-gauge shotgun, an AK-47 and a .40-caliber handgun. Crail said she could show that all three defendants had fired their weapons, while Wilkins, who she said had an unloaded shotgun, never fired during the altercation on 25th Avenue.
But Carney said it was Wilkins who was looking for a fight and emphasized her point by playing an explicit recording of Wilkin's music to the jury that specifically named "Ground Up."
The lyrics included lines like, "We'll lay you down and teach you homage" and "We'll put you six feet underground."
Carney went on to say the three defendants were simply enjoying a night out on the last weekend before their deployment to Iraq with the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team. The firearms found in the soldier's car had been used earlier that day for target shooting at the South Cushman shooting range.
Carney said the altercation began when Wilkins reportedly reached inside the car occupied by Cox and Walker, grabbed a bandana and set it on fire. She said the soldiers drove off from the club but were followed by Wilkins and Bruney to the area of 25th Avenue, at which point the shooting occurred.
"The state would like you to believe they, by defending themselves, that there was some illegal use of a weapon," Carney said.
Carney and attorney Geoffry Wildridge, representing Wright, said they would show that Wilkins threatened the soldiers and put them in fear of their lives to the point that the soldiers felt they had to defend themselves.
"They didn't expect Fairbanks to turn into Baghdad," Wildridge said. "They had every reason to believe they were going to be killed."
The prosecution presented several witnesses who were in the area of the shooting in August. Each testified to hearing shots that night. Some said they heard shotgun rounds and pistol rounds, and others said they could not specify what kind of firearms they heard.
The trial continues today and is expected to take several days.
carebear
Member
Haven't found a cite for this, but it's not unusual for the press to ignore innocent verdicts.
http://alphecca.com/mt_alphecca_archives/002164.html
I am a soldier serving in Alaska. This policy was started for the most part because of the case involving 3 soldiers from the 172nd SBCT as was stated in the news articles. But those same three soldiers jailed for murder where just found innocent of all charges against them and the shooting ruled self defense. Now, what if those same soldiers did not take their self defense seriously? We would have most likely been reading about the tragedy of a killed soldier or two. So what now? He started this policy mainly on this case and now a jury of their peers has found them innocent...interesting
Posted by: william caswell at March 27, 2006 06:02 PM
http://alphecca.com/mt_alphecca_archives/002164.html
I am a soldier serving in Alaska. This policy was started for the most part because of the case involving 3 soldiers from the 172nd SBCT as was stated in the news articles. But those same three soldiers jailed for murder where just found innocent of all charges against them and the shooting ruled self defense. Now, what if those same soldiers did not take their self defense seriously? We would have most likely been reading about the tragedy of a killed soldier or two. So what now? He started this policy mainly on this case and now a jury of their peers has found them innocent...interesting
Posted by: william caswell at March 27, 2006 06:02 PM
Al Norris
Member
Military service is an authorized exception to any and all other Constitutional considerations.
The UCMJ, enacted by the legislature pursuant to Constitutional authority, does all of the above. The only rights you have, as active duty military, are those specified within the UCMJ. All perfectly Constitutional, despite what anyone may say or tell you.
zerosignal
Member
Then we'll just have to agree to disagree on your constitutional interpretation.
You mean to tell me that a clause of an article takes precedence over the Bill of Rights?
They called the first 10 amendments that for a good reason. "government and regulation" is a term that can easily be misconstrued. The founding fathers always used to say that laws should be interpreted very strictly.
You are interpreting "government and regulation" just like an anti-gunner interprets "a well regulated militia".
Sorry, but the founders intentions have to be taken into account, not whichever way we can interpret them.
You mean to tell me that a clause of an article takes precedence over the Bill of Rights?
They called the first 10 amendments that for a good reason. "government and regulation" is a term that can easily be misconstrued. The founding fathers always used to say that laws should be interpreted very strictly.
You are interpreting "government and regulation" just like an anti-gunner interprets "a well regulated militia".
Sorry, but the founders intentions have to be taken into account, not whichever way we can interpret them.
Old Dog
Member
zerosignal said,
Back on topic: I would suspect that most who've served understand full well that they're held up to a much higher standard than regular citizens and that while on active duty, the serviceman (or woman, as the case may be) is also charged with sacrificing any number of rights that his countrymen whom he serves in defense of take for granted. That said, the issue is far greater than what's allowed to be worn while on liberty or by what time one must be back in the barracks ... I believe that the right to defend one's self (with firearms, if need be) is one that is of necessity retained by all Americans, whether Joe Sixpack working down at the foundry or Joe Spec-4 serving out his four-year enlistment down at Ft. Lewis.
Thus I believe the general's order was not only ill-advised, but illegal and un-Constitutional. Far different is preventing soldiers from being taken advantage of at some outside-the gate fly-by-night used-car dealership or strip bar than preventing soldiers from lawfully bearing arms off duty.
What? Really? You don't say ... I've been retired six months. Have things changed that much? At any rate, zerosignal, I am sorry you've had such negative experiences in your short military career. I did not intend to imply that you've been a dirtbag, rather, I meant only that it's really not difficult to successfully get through an enlistment these days ...
Back on topic: I would suspect that most who've served understand full well that they're held up to a much higher standard than regular citizens and that while on active duty, the serviceman (or woman, as the case may be) is also charged with sacrificing any number of rights that his countrymen whom he serves in defense of take for granted. That said, the issue is far greater than what's allowed to be worn while on liberty or by what time one must be back in the barracks ... I believe that the right to defend one's self (with firearms, if need be) is one that is of necessity retained by all Americans, whether Joe Sixpack working down at the foundry or Joe Spec-4 serving out his four-year enlistment down at Ft. Lewis.
Thus I believe the general's order was not only ill-advised, but illegal and un-Constitutional. Far different is preventing soldiers from being taken advantage of at some outside-the gate fly-by-night used-car dealership or strip bar than preventing soldiers from lawfully bearing arms off duty.
zerosignal
Member
My mistake, I didn't realize you had retired so recently. I suspect the difference in our experiences amounts to simple luck in assignments, or possibly the difference between the Army and Air Force.
I really loved the military when I first joined, and there is still a TON that I like. Unfortunately, I'm not willing to do 20 years in a service that treats me like a caged animal.
Thanks for your response, and sorry for taking your words a bit out of context.
I really loved the military when I first joined, and there is still a TON that I like. Unfortunately, I'm not willing to do 20 years in a service that treats me like a caged animal.
Thanks for your response, and sorry for taking your words a bit out of context.
spartacus2002
Member
I was a JAG for several years, and the above is simply not true. There are certain additional restrictions on servicemembers, and certain additional lengths to which commanders can go, but to say you have NO constitutional rights except what the UCMJ grants is merely urban legend and halftruth. You may have had NCOs or commanders that acted like that was true, but they were wrong.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Absolutely. Besides, as a person in the military, you give up rights to be in the military. You are effectively a conscript subject to legal action for non-compliance. You could argue that it is a violation of your rights to force you to go into battle or to not allow you off base at your leisure (false imprisonment). You do not have the right to dress down a superior ranking officer and if you do, you may find you are being punished for a First Amendment right issue that doesn't apply in the military.
In the private sector, these still hold, but without the legal rammifications. When you are employed by another, you agree to work by that person's rules. You will show up to work at specified times. Leaving work could mean getting fired. You do not have the right to draw up and distribute literature while at work (freedom of speech and press) although it may be done off hours. You do not have the right to dress down your boss and still keep your job. Insubordination in the private sector can mean unemployment. In short, being employed means giving up rights voluntarily and refusal to do so means punishment or dismissal. In the military, it means punishment or legal action against you.
It is NOT a Constitutional issue. If you give up your rights voluntarily. And, since Article 1, Section 8 gives the government the right to raise armies and have them do its bidding, while in the service of the armies, individuals are not with rights as the Consitution gives power to the government to be able to order this people into service and to conduct service.
Yes, but it isn't Articles versus Amendments. They are all part of the same Consitution and no part of the Constitution is inherently more powerful than another. However, if you want to nitpick, it is Article V that provides for amendments to the Constitution. So without the permission of an article such as Article V, then there would be no Bill of Rights. In the creation of power, it would appear that Articles do have a superior place in the legal process. As noted, neither is superior, but Amendments only came about because of Article V and remember than Amendments are simply Constitutional patch jobs for things not considered or rectification of problems.
Old Dog
Member
Please enlighten us with your recent personal experience as a member of our armed forces so that we may understand how you arrive at this conclusion.
- Status
