Alaska Army command restricts troops' arms

Which part of "Support and defend the Constitution of the United States" did the General miss? Or his superiors or subordinates? The argument can be made that the military can't usurp the decisions of an elected legislature, but I don't see a Constitutional argument that can make the new policy pass muster.

Anybody?

If an elected official does not take this general to task, the question is, who of his subordinates will face the long green table questioning "lawful order?" Hopefully, its his senior enlisted.
RKM

Policy doesn't seem to say anything about open carry, which, if I am not mistaken is perfectly legal and quite common in some places in AK. The words "deadly weapon" seem to always be preceded by "concealed". Although I think the policy extends beyond the Generals scope of command and is entirely wrong, perhaps this is a loophole that can be exploited. How the hell is a soldier carrying OFF base supposed to be a "significant risk to the safety and welfare" of his command? I call bull.

Interesting that it impacts the famlies of soldiers. I think a non-service member relative should bring suit.

Good luck with these protests. From my most recent active duty days, in the mid-eighties, I recall an incident where the BG who ran the numbered Air Division (40th AD) our wing was part of had an incident where a humorous, not lewd T-shirt was worn by a military member at an on-base party. In those days, the command used to have t-shirts made celebrating everything imaginable, for "morale" reasons.

An edict came down restricting t-shirts to team apparel of recognized teams, athletic logo companies, etc.

In protest, I had one made that simply said "Approved, 40AD-C/C", and had to go home and change it on order of the wing brass. The shirt had only black lettering on a plain blue t-shirt.

No sense of humor, but also, no ability to change the General's order or to even protest it.

Yep, the military has that power.

BTW, did you know that if you get a sunburn while off-duty, you can get an Article 15 (nonjudicial punishment) including loss of rank and up to a month's pay, FOR ABUSING THE GOVERNMENT'S BODY?

Same thing if you get an STD. Your body doesn't belong to you in the military. It's questionable whether your wife's does...

I believe there was decision in the mid '80s related to an army commander to attempted to register all private weapons owned by his troops. I think some court(not sure whether it was military or civilian) ruled that he only had the authority to regulate private arms on base. Seems like this would be a good precedent to challenge this. BTW, it may have been Ft. Leavenworth.

I am one of the soldiers effected by this new policy. I have served 19 years in the military and seen many policys that made me scratch my head in confusion. This policy feels like someone has came along and kicked me square in the privates just because they can. I am outraged that I can no longer protect myself and my family off the base unless i choose to wear the weapon in full site. I am not oposed to this but there are comfort zones for people who choose not to carry weapons, how does that dad or mom feel when they take there family to the movies and see someone carrying out in the open, or a food establishment, or a grocery store...see my point. The more we where weapons for the world to see the more ammuntion we give the gun control nuts. Please contact every one you know to get this word out. The US Army should not be enforcing a gun control agenda

How ironic is it that I have just returned from protecting the newly established freedoms of Afghan citizens to find my own constitutionally guaranteed rights taken away.
I’m talking about the fact that Major General Charles H. Jacoby Jr., the United States Army Alaska’s commanding general, has recently issued an order prohibiting USARAK soldiers from carrying concealed weapons, even though Alaska state law is a right-to-carry state that recognizes its residents have a fundamental right to protect themselves.
Many articles in the press and statements by the public affairs officer for USARAK cite the recent situations involving soldiers in firearms related incidents. One case in particular, involving Lionel Wright and his friends, resulted in soldiers that shot and killed a civilian who threatened the soldiers with another firearm.
What is not made clear is that the jury found Lionel Wright, Freddy Walker and Christopher Cox acted in self defense in the shooting of Alvin Wilkins Jr.
The policy was intended to reduce what the command perceived as an unreasonable amount of firearms incidents… Obviously, a soldier acting in self defense is inappropriate
The last time I checked the United States Constitution, among other things, guaranteed three important things – that the rights of the states are more important than the federal rights; every citizen is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and every citizen has a right to bear arms.
The last time I checked, my joining the military did not strip me of my civil liberties and constitutional rights. I understand that the commanding general has a right, and is in reason, to impose rules governing the possession, use, carry and concealment of firearms on post. But in my opinion he has overstepped federal and state law by issuing what I consider an unlawful order.
What legal right does he have to contradict a right guaranteed by my state? What would the outcry be if he made a policy that his soldiers under the age of 21 can drink alcoholic beverages off post? Or if he decided it was appropriate to order soldiers under the age of 21 not to drive automobiles off post? He would certainly be viewed as overstepping his bounds.
In Alaska, USARAK soldiers must be over the age of 19 to buy tobacco products off post because of a state law. Do you see Jacoby running out and demanding that soldiers be given the right to buy tobacco at the age of 18? No, because he would be stepping on state law and he has no legal authority to allow or disallow soldiers to do so.
Fort Bliss, Texas has an exception to policy letter that allows soldiers to legally drink on post at the age of 18. It seems to me that this is counter productive to the commonly held view that the appropriate age to drink is 21.
I also feel the order that we can not carry a legally concealed firearm is also discriminatory by the Army’s own standards. The order is only directed at USARAK soldiers. If a soldier that has Alaskan residence, but is stationed in North Carolina, comes home to visit he or she can legally carry a concealed weapon because the wording of the order only applies to USARAK soldiers. We are penalized due to our being a USARAK asset.
There are long stretches of desolate roads where the nearest police officer is hundreds of miles away. When I go camping I want to be able to protect myself and my family from two legged predators as well as four, without advertising to the whole world I’m armed. To get to certain final destinations, a person must travel through some villages in Alaska where the residents are not so friendly with outsiders or military members.
Alaska is a very large and untamed state where there are real instances where it is justifiable to carry protection. I am not advocating that soldiers carry concealed weapons everywhere or denying that there are not individuals, due to immaturity or short tempers, that should not carry a concealed weapon.
I am saying that I know myself. I am responsible adult who will not abuse the right to protect myself and only desire to carry a firearm when absolutely necessary. It is my constitutional right to do this and it is my state right to do this. Why is the military denying me my rights?

Well at least soldiers can still open carry when off post and off duty.

But this policy really needs to be reversed. Where is the cionsideration of soldiers' 2d Amendment rights, which this Administration supports? No Commanding General would be allowed to order his troops not to participate in peaceful protest when off post and off duty...why is General Jacoby getting a free ride on this?

Mike Stollenwerk
www.OpenCarry.org

Sounds like Ft Bliss. My command just issued a mirror copy policy of the CG Ft Bliss policy. Now, even those that live off-post need to register their fireamrs with the Provist Marshall. I am looking for a legal precedence where this was slapped down before. Any know?

Thjis is a crazy policy! I am currently staioned in ga and will be moving to alaska this summer. As amilitary member in GA we are allowed to carry concealed without a permit (we are grouped with off duty police) as we can carry even in school zones ect as a police officer can. by state law and the 3 star general we fall under allows us to do so dont even put a policy letter out to control it as long as we abide by the local laws on post carry is different but it should be.

I am station in Alaska too. I NEVER Carry my weapons on post. The way I see it if my gun is concealed they do not know about it off post, that is my business. If I ever get in a situation that I have to use my firearm for portection of myself or my family and the Post Commander has a problem with it, then I will go down that road when it gets here. My family is more important to me than GEN Jacoby sitting comfortably behind his desk, with a bunch of private securtiy gaurds sitting outside his door.

I just recently moved to Alaska and I am stationed at Fort WainWright. Why do I feel that this policy letter is another politicaly correct policy letter that was formed as a knee jerk reaction to an unfortunate event. We all took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. We are all willing to DIE for the Constitution. Why am I denied the right to defend my family off post? On federal property is different. I am not an MP, there for I shall not carry my weapon on post. I will defend my family at all costs. I will go down that road when it happens.

P.S. Political correctness as already claimed the life of 13 of my brother in arms. It will not claim my family.