Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/16/2006 12:02:52 PM EDT
John Pennell
Fort Richardson PAO

U.S. ARMY ALASKA — Despite an Alaska law allowing gun owners to carry concealed weapons, U.S. Army Alaska policy still reigns supreme on forts Richardson and Wainwright.

Two policy letters signed this week reinforce and clarify the command’s guidelines on privately owned weapons, including the prohibition against USARAK Soldiers carrying concealed weapons.

Alaska gun laws with regard to concealed weapons are not applicable, said Eric Carlson, USARAK security officer.

According to Commanding General/Chief of Staff Policy Statement 0-20, Concealed Weapons Policy, Soldiers assigned or attached to USARAK are prohibited from carrying a concealed deadly weapon on or off the installation.

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.

Personnel who wish to bring their firearms onto the installation must comply with the registration, transport and storage requirements listed in USARAK Regulation 190-1, paragraphs I-12 and I-17; as well as Policy Statement 0-17.

The policies are punitive.

Soldiers who fail to comply are subject to adverse administrative action or punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or both.

All violators are also subject to possible revocation of their privilege to possess a privately owned firearm on a USARAK installation.

To see the policy statements, go to www.usarak.army.mil/policies/Policies/CG_CofS_Policy_List.htm.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 2:28:53 PM EDT
OK?
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 2:37:12 PM EDT
Just seems to me that our service members should be able to protect themselves off post as the rest of the law abiding Alaskans can.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 4:42:09 PM EDT
They can

They just cant carry CCW on base, nor can civilians. This has been the rule/law since I lived on Wainwright in the late 80's early 90's.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 5:04:25 PM EDT
no the policy letter says that even off post USARAK ( army ) personel can not CCW
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 7:52:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sig40Fan:
no the policy letter says that even off post USARAK ( army ) personel can not CCW



I missed that

Wonder if it has anything to do with the three shit bags on trial right now for the shotgun jousting.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 8:38:49 PM EDT
What the Army dont know, dont hurt. Im still looking forward to getting stationed in Alaska in a couple years, if I cant get it in the re-up contract Ill move there as a civilian. Either way I plan to exercise the CCW off post at all times.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 8:09:47 AM EDT
It blows. I think they have every right to defend themselves off post as I do. And as far as USAAK is concerned, they can't.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 9:19:36 AM EDT
So anyone think it might be a possible knee jerk reaction to the 3 GI's on trial for murder?
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 12:20:19 PM EDT
I think it has to do with typical Army politics. Most higher ups dont support things like concealed carry or self defense, many dont support the 2nd and believe the only armed Americans should be military and LEO. You d be suprised the comments I recieve when I talk to some of the senior NCOs and oficers in my brigade about shooting on the weekends.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 7:28:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Alaskagrown:
So anyone think it might be a possible knee jerk reaction to the 3 GI's on trial for murder?




But they didn't have a concealed gun...?
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 12:22:31 PM EDT
prohibiting ccw on post is one thing, but off past as well. sounds like violation of the 2nd to me. nra know of this?
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 1:01:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By infsqdldr:
prohibiting ccw on post is one thing, but off past as well. sounds like violation of the 2nd to me. nra know of this?



I dont see NRA or any other group influencing a order that only affects those in USARAK, remember we dont get the same rights as normal citizens, all part of the enlistment contract.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 2:15:33 PM EDT
people keep thkning that military members have all there rights ... they in fact dont .. anyone who has served or has served knows all too well the irony of that
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 3:56:05 PM EDT
I thought I had heard about this some years back, but wasn't made policy in the end (about the off base carry). It may have even been about owning guns off base, can't recall, but it was the same sort of BS.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 9:00:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 20iner:

Originally Posted By Alaskagrown:
So anyone think it might be a possible knee jerk reaction to the 3 GI's on trial for murder?




But they didn't have a concealed gun...?



The Newsminer has an article on the policy on the front page of todays paper the PAO states that the policy is in response to the murder trial as well as other incidents that have happened over the last 6 months
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 9:04:09 AM EDT
Just curious, got any good clubs that are on the off limits list around there? We have a good S&M club here called the dungeon that we arent supposed to go to where you can get spanked, whipped, or spun around on the wheel of joy.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 10:46:33 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 10:51:11 AM EDT
I'm not quite sure what to write....damn, dude that's bad.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 11:09:42 AM EDT
I do not think that want to even go that way.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 10:10:47 PM EDT
I just read that the Fairbanks trio was aquitted. According to the jury they acted in self defense.
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 3:13:24 PM EDT
The Policy Letter says this:


1. 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.


The Regulation says this:


g. Authority granted by the State of Alaska to carry a concealed firearm is NOT valid on USARAK posts. Personnel with permits who wish to bring their handguns onto the installation must comply with the registration and storage requirements in paragraphs I-12 and I-17.


Looks to me like an open and shut case of somebody trying to overstep their bounds. The policy orders all Army and Attached (read Air Force, Marines, Navy, etc. ) not to carry concealed weapons off post. I can understand regulating behavior on post or in uniform, but this is as broad as saying, “Voting for Republicans represents a significant risk to the safety and welfare of this command.” This is a broad, sweeping policy that violates the 2nd Amendment of the constitution, IMHO.

Can somebody forward the PDF's to the NRA and see if some contacts in Washington can be put into action? I'm in Dillingham now and downloading stuff takes a great deal of time.
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 11:14:38 PM EDT
while i do disagree with the policy, i understand their intent. those little wannabe gangbangers ruined it for everyone else, typical army shit. military police and access control have been notified of the policy change at fwa, so i doubt itll change any time soon. all they can do to enforce it is ucmj action on top of any other trouble someone should get into while ccw. i imagine if they still have problems they would not allow soldiers to own handguns. soldiers have to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them, no matter what constitutional rights a civilian has. ill never go back.
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 8:48:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By infsqdldr:
Soldiers have to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them, no matter what constitutional rights a civilian has. ill never go back.



Biggest reason I want to get out at the next chance.
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 12:47:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By infsqdldr:
while i do disagree with the policy, i understand their intent. those little wannabe gangbangers ruined it for everyone else, typical army shit. military police and access control have been notified of the policy change at fwa, so i doubt itll change any time soon. all they can do to enforce it is ucmj action on top of any other trouble someone should get into while ccw. i imagine if they still have problems they would not allow soldiers to own handguns. soldiers have to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them, no matter what constitutional rights a civilian has. ill never go back.



Not true. Soldiers do not have to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them IF those orders are unlawful or violate the constitutional rights of the soldier. You don't forefit your constitutional rights when you join. This policy is wrong, unjust, and unconstitutional.
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 2:05:22 PM EDT
go tell that to that Michael New guy that tried that and got tossed out ... IN fact 90% of the time the military can and will do what they want to there members ... Hell I remember the whole Anthrax shots issue , saw 3 guys get dropped first from E5 to E4 then from E4 - E1 and processed right on out
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 5:15:28 PM EDT
Here is the reply from the NRA:

Thank you for contacting the NRA-ILA. While military personnel have
certain rights, stipulated by the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ), the Manual of Courts Martial, and the various services' regulations,
they do not possess the same rights as private citizens. Under the
UCMJ, military personnel are required to comply with any lawful order, and
an order is lawful if it does not compel an action that is prohibited
by the UCMJ or regulations. Compare with the civilian world, in which
agents of the government are not permitted to compel you to take any
action unless their authority to do so has been specifically granted by law
or regulation.

A military commander may order that his personnel not possess privately
owned firearms on-base or even at home off-base, and such an order is
lawful because, among other reasons, there is no right to arms
enumerated in military law or regulation. Thus, in the military the possession
of firearms is permitted only when specifically authorized, while in the
civilian world it is permitted unless specifically prohibited.

Finally, note also that a base commander may also prohibit anyone,
including a civilian with a civilian carry permit, from possessing a
firearm on his installation.

Sincerely,

Amanda Millward

Anyone else got any better any ideas other then "it sucks to be you"?????

Link Posted: 3/24/2006 7:32:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/24/2006 7:33:57 PM EDT by MST2]
Amanda from the NRA is wrong on this one.

That order violates the Constitutional rights of the military member, and also is a slap in the face to liberty and why a lot of men and women join the military to serve thier Country.


Who the hell is he to decide that the member cannot protect himself or his family.


He should be reprimanded and retired.
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 8:06:19 PM EDT
Once again, we do not have constitutional rights in the military.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 3:11:23 PM EDT
they even have a policy that the only sex position allowed is missionary. no oral. crazy.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 6:49:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By nf9648:
Once again, we do not have constitutional rights in the military.


No, you're wrong. So is the lady from the NRA. In reality, we have the same rights as everybody else. What constitutes a lawful order is what is at issue.
Link Posted: 3/26/2006 8:59:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BadgerArms:

Originally Posted By nf9648:
Once again, we do not have constitutional rights in the military.


No, you're wrong. So is the lady from the NRA. In reality, we have the same rights as everybody else. What constitutes a lawful order is what is at issue.



Go attend a anti war rally and see if you dont get a field grade.
Link Posted: 3/26/2006 1:54:52 PM EDT
Here's the AP Article (pulled from the Anchorage Daily News)

The Associated Press

(Published: March 20, 2006)
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."


Intent versus outcome... hmmm, I didn't INTEND to restrict their rights... but I did.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 3:31:28 PM EDT
In regards to the response from the NRA, here's my conclusion. 1. they don't give a shit about soldiers or they would be raising hell to the IG and 2. they won't get any money out of the deal if they did (join them and see how much mail and emails you get asking for money). The one thing that sucks about this is if I were to carry off post, I could loose my career which supports me and my family. That is one thing you just don't take chances with. This is not about the constitution. If it was then regestering your weapons on post it wouldn't be happening. Note that this registration is a national resristation base meaning any cop with who can imput a case on a computer can access these records. This goes for civilians who register their firearms on post also. (Those LE out there try it on COPS). Not only that but when you move it goes with you. When I came here I had almost 100 weapons on file from registering the same few weapons at all of my previous duty stations. Oh yea and luck getting that FUBAR fixed. Also note that military has the right to do anything with its soldiers regarding on and off post. There is a reason certain places like some clubs are off limits and you can be punished under UCMJ for violating a lawful order. The only way this policy can change is through the CG himself who can be encouraged through public pressure (media, civilian contractors, ect). This is a matter of me protecting me and my family when we are off post, nothing else.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 6:47:55 AM EDT
How about the 2nd Ammendment Foundation or another pro-Gun cause? The AGCA? Don Young? Lisa Murkowski (Don't laugh, she's helped me in the past). Somebody could make an official inquiry.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 11:24:15 AM EDT
the reality of it all is that general fancy pants will be able to do what he wants ... and they have proven time and time again . Military members are dubject to the UCMJ and they do not in fact get all there rights ... Who is gonna be the first one to line up and sacrifice themselves to prove a point ? noone thats who .. the military likes to make examples of people that have backbones
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 12:58:56 AM EDT
its a pretty messed up deal. I complained to my chain of command and then to IG but got nothing out of it. I don't care to raise to much more of a fuss myself because I am a petty little E3 and no one cares about me. There are a few problems that sparked this...one of which being an e5 firing his handgun out the sunroof of his car while driving down the glenn over new years. Its shit. he was not demoted he spoke to us in a safty breifing about how stupid it was. so now my ability to carry is taken away while he had no action taken against him minus a little extra duty.

A soldier last weekend was mugged on muldoon he normally ccw'd but stopped when the reg came down on us. it would not have happened the same had he been carrying. The civilians all know this. military men are generally law abiding we have discipline and respect so your joe public gang banger will see this as our weakness thinking he isn't allowed to carry a weapon and is stupid enough to follow the rules. So joe gangbanger has a gun and I don't...I don't like my odds.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 11:41:09 AM EDT
I recall being detained against my will, being forced to do physical labor for far less then min wage and for more than 8 hrs without "overtime", being forced to abide by appearance standards, and having my freedom of speech violated by the Army.

The Mil can and does violate soldiers rights as long as they aren't ordering you to do something illegal. It sure ain't a democracy.

Top Top