Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 3/13/2006 10:20:17 AM EDT
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%20POLICY%20STATEMENT%2020.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
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 12:10:01 PM EDT
Taking away your constitutional rights (and human right to self-defense) is not a lawful order. I would not abide by it.
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 12:30:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 12:41:13 PM EDT
People have accidents everyday, maybe this unconcerned for his soldiers right to defend themselves off post General should suddenly find his foot in contact with a banana peel and himself face to face with the concrete.
Just kidding, the guys an assclown though.
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 12:51:00 PM EDT
Major General DUPE
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 2:15:16 PM EDT
Like it or not it is a lawful order. Soldiers do not have the rights that a civilian has. Before everyone jumps all over me I have to tell you I was an Sgt. in the army and know how the system works.
That being said I do agree it complely sucks. Unfortunately the general issuing the order is only answerable to is military superior. Maybe if enough politos leaned on the pentagon and "encouraged" them to tell the general to reconsider... well, that would work.
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 2:34:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GaryM:
Like it or not it is a lawful order. Soldiers do not have the rights that a civilian has. Before everyone jumps all over me I have to tell you I was an Sgt. in the army and know how the system works.
That being said I do agree it complely sucks. Unfortunately the general issuing the order is only answerable to is military superior. Maybe if enough politos leaned on the pentagon and "encouraged" them to tell the general to reconsider... well, that would work.



Can the General also ban the driving of automobiles while off post? The use of hammers or knives? Prohibit swimming while off post?
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 3:01:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GaryM:
Like it or not it is a lawful order. Soldiers do not have the rights that a civilian has. Before everyone jumps all over me I have to tell you I was an a Sgt. in the army Army and know how the system works.
That being said I do agree it complely sucks. Unfortunately the general issuing the order is only answerable to is military superior. Maybe if enough politos leaned on the pentagon and "encouraged" them to tell the general to reconsider... well, that would work.



Sure you were
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 5:31:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GaryM:
Like it or not it is a lawful order. Soldiers do not have the rights that a civilian has. Before everyone jumps all over me I have to tell you I was an Sgt. in the army and know how the system works.
That being said I do agree it complely sucks. Unfortunately the general issuing the order is only answerable to is military superior. Maybe if enough politos leaned on the pentagon and "encouraged" them to tell the general to reconsider... well, that would work.



The general serves at the will of civilians.

What if he banned interracial marriage....or.....banned voting, or better yet, ordered that all state law need not apply to military personel?

My point is that there are limits, and I believe he has exceeded them. This will not stand.
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 6:38:55 PM EDT
Contact the NRA. They are a political force that can insure that this Major General retires in that rank. It only takes one Senator to stop his next star.
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 10:27:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Blue_Suiter:
Major General DUPE



Who gives a major fuck.. I wish the "Dupe Police" would all go lay down. This is the first I saw it. And I'm glad I did..
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 11:35:24 PM EDT
Letter to the NRA sent....
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 12:26:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By coltshorty14:

Originally Posted By Blue_Suiter:
Major General DUPE



Who gives a major fuck.. I wish the "Dupe Police" would all go lay down. This is the first I saw it. And I'm glad I did..



Yup! The "DUPERS" are real pricks! Get a life morons! Not everyone gets to scan this forum 24/7 to make sure they don't miss anything!
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 3:50:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dracster:

Originally Posted By GaryM:
Like it or not it is a lawful order. Soldiers do not have the rights that a civilian has. Before everyone jumps all over me I have to tell you I was an Sgt. in the army and know how the system works.
That being said I do agree it complely sucks. Unfortunately the general issuing the order is only answerable to is military superior. Maybe if enough politos leaned on the pentagon and "encouraged" them to tell the general to reconsider... well, that would work.



Can the General also ban the driving of automobiles while off post? The use of hammers or knives? Prohibit swimming while off post?



Actually, yes he can.

Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:40:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 6:54:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 6:57:40 PM EDT by MST2]

Originally Posted By chris1911:
Taking away your constitutional rights (and human right to self-defense) is not a lawful order. I would not abide by it.



+10000000000000000000

A bunch of calls to Senator Stevens needs to be made.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 7:51:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stickman:

Originally Posted By Ross:

Originally Posted By Dracster:


Can the General also ban the driving of automobiles while off post? The use of hammers or knives? Prohibit swimming while off post?



Actually, yes he can.






Very easily, and it happens all the time. They can also tell you where you can and can't shop. Each base has a list of establishments that military persons are barred from.





He can also revoke everyones pass privileges and make everyone live in the barracks on post. Even married members. Time off duty and off post is a privilege. Especially an overseas station, which Alaska is considered.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:19:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Stickman:

Originally Posted By Ross:

Originally Posted By Dracster:


Can the General also ban the driving of automobiles while off post? The use of hammers or knives? Prohibit swimming while off post?



Actually, yes he can.






Very easily, and it happens all the time. They can also tell you where you can and can't shop. Each base has a list of establishments that military persons are barred from.





The UCMJ even tells you how you can have sexual intercourse...
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:53:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasMerQ:

Originally Posted By Stickman:

Originally Posted By Ross:

Originally Posted By Dracster:


Can the General also ban the driving of automobiles while off post? The use of hammers or knives? Prohibit swimming while off post?



Actually, yes he can.






Very easily, and it happens all the time. They can also tell you where you can and can't shop. Each base has a list of establishments that military persons are barred from.





The UCMJ even tells you how you can have sexual intercourse...



Yep.. Wife, lights out, under the sheets, and only straight.... Oral, turning on the light, different position, etc could all be considered Sodomy..

Link Posted: 3/23/2006 12:04:17 PM EDT
I find this very disconcerting. While the UCMJ provides the powers that be a
wide range of powers, the brass needs to realize that if they continue to treat
our men and women of our armed forces like boys and girls, that they will soon
have to reinstate the draft. Being treated like that is one reason people (even
who enjoy the military) choose to leave after enlistments are fulfilled. Saying that
you can't trust them with personally owned firearms, but then handing them an
M16/M4 and telling them to go to war is asinine. How can people be part
of an ARMED force and be told that they are unsafe with firearms
and have no right to personal protection off duty? IMO they should encourage
training and maybe even require the carrying of firearms. If people are good enough
to join than they should be good enough to carry.
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 6:57:15 PM EDT
Lets face it, the "old school" military leaders are a thing of the past---now, once they get to that rank, they are just politicians and run things like CEO's.
In the words of Brig. Gen. McAuliffe in Bastogne-----'nuts'
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 12:53:10 PM EDT
Here is a simple rule to remember.
Soldiers DO NOT have rights.
They give up theirs so that they can protect yours.

Top Top