US Army Suppressing Soldier's 2nd Amendment Rights, OFF Base (Merged) - Page 4

US Army Suppressing Soldier's 2nd Amendment Rights, OFF Base (Merged)

This is a discussion on US Army Suppressing Soldier's 2nd Amendment Rights, OFF Base (Merged) within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; So are you saying that the following is no longer in effect? APVR-RUPM DEPARTMENT THE ARMY HEADQUARTERS, ARMY ALASKA 724 SERVICE LOOP FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA ...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 75
  1. #46
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    So are you saying that the following is no longer in effect?

    APVR-RUPM
    DEPARTMENT THE ARMY
    HEADQUARTERS, ARMY ALASKA
    724 SERVICE LOOP
    FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA 99505-5000
    21 FEB 06
    MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
    SUBJECT: Concealed Weapons Policy (CG/CofS Policy #0-20)
    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.
    2. Definitions:
    a. Carry means on or about the person, or uncased within the immediate vicinity of the
    person, so as to be available for immediate use, e.g. in the person's automobile.
    b. Deadly weapon means any fiream or anything designed for or capable of causing death
    or serious physical injury.
    c. Concealed means hidden from plain view.
    d. Firearm means a weapon, including a pistol, revolver, rifle, or shotgun, whether loaded or
    unloaded, operable or inoperable, designed to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive
    charge or primer.
    e. Public place means a place to which the public or a substantial group of persons has
    access. This includes locations involved in the sale of alcoholic beverages, highways,
    transportation facilities, schools, places of business, places of amusement, parks, playgrounds
    and prisons. It also includes hallways, lobbies, and other portions of apartment houses and hotels
    not constituting rooms or appartments designed for actual residence.
    3. This policy is punitive. Soldiers who fail to comply with the requirements of this policy are
    subject to adverse administrative action and/or punishment under the Uniform Code of Military
    Justice.
    CHARLES H. ACOBY
    Major General, USA
    Commanding
    DISTRIB UTION:
    A
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro


  2. #47
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,475
    I'm not in AK nor the service any longer, so I can't say. Seeing as it's a memorandum dated 2006, it may or may not be in effect. If so, I find it hard to believe no one has challenged this before. I certainly would have, as I don't see CC anymore dangerous that a bunch of 18-yr-olds with loaded automatic weapons.

    I believe memorandums are only effective under the issuing commander, and must be re-issued by any subsequent commander. But I'm not sure. I still feel this is an issue with an individual (the general), not a Constitutional Rights issue, and should be addressed as such. Generals have been known to back down before.

    Any military lawyers out there got an answer?
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  3. #48
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    I'm not in AK nor the service any longer, so I can't say. Seeing as it's a memorandum dated 2006, it may or may not be in effect.
    ....
    I believe memorandums are only effective under the issuing commander, and must be re-issued by any subsequent commander. But I'm not sure. I still feel this is an issue with an individual (the general), not a Constitutional Rights issue, and should be addressed as such. Generals have been known to back down before.

    Any military lawyers out there got an answer?
    A check shows that Maj. Gen. William J. Troy assumed command of U.S. Army Alaska in September 2009.

    So, if you are right it is no longer in effect,
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  4. #49
    Member Array Griffworks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Central Arkansas
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    Early in my career, I learned not to take the word of even the old-timers in regards as to what the rules and regulations said. I found the info given to me orally by the "experts" to be incorrect in the majority of cases. I didn't make E-8 by listening to what others told me was gospel.

    >SNIPPERS!<
    Also known as "Trust, But Verify". Taught to me by a past Supervisor/Mentor. Works well, but some folks feel a bit insulted by it on occasion. I know that I used to - 'til I discovered that information I had passed on was out-of-date....
    Arkansas Concealed Carry Instructor #12-751

    If guns kill people, then:
    Pincels miss spel werds;
    Cars make people drive drunk;
    And spoons made Rosie O'Donnel fat.

  5. #50
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,475
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    A check shows that Maj. Gen. William J. Troy assumed command of U.S. Army Alaska in September 2009.

    So, if you are right it is no longer in effect,
    Big IF... My "AF" experience is that every incoming CO has to sign off on any regs and/or policies established by the previous regime and reissue same under his or her name.

    Usually a commander's term of command is no more than 2-3 years before moving on to (hopefully) bigger and better positions. Let's hope MG Troy has a more level head than his predecessor. If so, the entire discussion here may be null and void (love that phrase!). I find it hard to conceive that any officer would deny any soldier the right to self-protection when not under the army's direct control. But that's one of the reasons I chose Air Force "dining facilities" over Army MREs.

    ANY USARAK personnel out there that can kick in with the latest and greatest status of the memorandum in question?
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  6. #51
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post

    ....

    If so, the entire discussion here may be null and void (love that phrase!). I find it hard to conceive that any officer would deny any soldier the right to self-protection when not under the army's direct control.
    ....
    Yup.

    On the other hand, Senator James Inhofe served in the House from 1987 until 1994, and has served in the Senate from 1994 and who currently serves on the Committee on Armed Services -- and might be privy to some information we are not aware of (e.g., DOD's actual thoughts in response to Ft Hood, as apposed to the mainstream media's speculation). That is what the political appointees would do as apposed to what any level-headed officer would would do relative to any soldier's the right to self-protection when not under the army's direct control.

    I think I remember that the Ft Hood shooter lived off base.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  7. #52
    Senior Member Array Herknav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Waypoint 0
    Posts
    986
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    A check shows that Maj. Gen. William J. Troy assumed command of U.S. Army Alaska in September 2009.
    That checks with what I found. I know for a fact (as in, I have seen both letters with my own eyes) that it was signed by Jacoby and his successor, Layfield. I also know that it is in the current Arctic Warrior Standards that you link from the USARAK home page. Go to www.usarak.army.mil. Click on "USARAK Home" in the upper left corner. Click on "Arctic Warrior Standards" in the drop-down menu. Go to page I-6. This proves I'm not just typing random crap into a quote box.

    I am away from work this week, so I can't check from a .mil computer to see if there's anything newer there.

    Trust but verify is fine. It just came across as, "there's NO way this is possibly true." That's a bit different than "Got a link?"
    I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth.--Steve McQueen

  8. #53
    New Member Array KiowaDriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Savannah, GA
    Posts
    2

    US Army Suppressing Soldier's 2nd Amendment Rights, OFF Base

    NRA-ILA :: Sen. Inhofe Introduces Legislation To Protect Second Amendment<br>Rights Of Military And Dept. Of Defense Civilian Personnel

    Sen. Inhofe Introduces Legislation To Protect Second Amendment
    Rights Of Military And Dept. Of Defense Civilian Personnel

    Friday, May 28, 2010

    Over a period of some months, NRA members in the Armed Forces have called NRA's attention to the fact that certain military base commanders, exercising arbitrary authority given them under military law and regulations, have issued orders violating military personnel's Second Amendment rights. In a particularly egregious example, Fort Riley, Kansas, has imposed a preposterous regulation that, among other things, (1) requires the registration, with Fort Riley, of its soldiers' privately-owned firearms kept off-base, and those of the soldiers' family members residing anywhere in Kansas, (2) prohibits soldiers who have firearm-carrying permits from carrying firearms for protection off-base, and (3) authorizes unit commanders to set arbitrary limits on the caliber of firearms and ammunition their troops may privately own.

    Concurrently, following the multiple shooting on Fort Hood last year, allegedly committed with one or more firearms brought onto the base in violation of base regulations, the Department of Defense (DOD) began working on a regulation that, among other things, would require military commanders to require troops to register privately owned firearms kept off-base, and authorize such commanders to require troops living off-base to keep privately-owned firearms and ammunition locked in separate containers, the latter a restriction of the same type as, but more restrictive than, a law struck down by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). The D.C. law, the Court concluded, "makes it impossible for citizens to use [firearms] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

    To nullify existing military orders and regulations that violate certain Second Amendment rights of military and civilian DOD personnel, and to preempt other orders and regulations of the sort, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. Sen. Inhofe's amendment, adopted on May 27 by the Senate Armed Services Committee:

    - States that "[T]he Secretary of Defense shall not prohibit, issue any requirement relating to, or collect or record any information relating to the otherwise lawful acquisition, possession, ownership, carrying, or other use of a privately owned firearm, privately-owned ammunition, or another privately-owned weapon by a member of the Armed Forces or civilian employee of the Department of Defense on property that is not owned or operated by the Department of Defense."
    - Nullifies military orders and regulations of the types the amendment prohibits
    - Requires DOD to destroy all gun ownership records of the types the amendment prohibits
    - Preserves DOD's authority to "regulate the possession, carrying, or other use of a firearm, ammunition, or other weapon" by personnel on-duty or in military uniform
    - Preserves DOD's authority to "create and maintain records relating to an investigation, prosecution, or adjudication of an alleged violation of law (including regulations) not prohibited by the amendment, including matters related to whether a member of the Armed Forces constitutes a threat to himself or others."

  9. #54
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,901
    Interesting article. Welcome to the forum.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  10. #55
    New Member Array KiowaDriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Savannah, GA
    Posts
    2
    Thank-you. You would think that after Ft. Hood the Army would have gone the other direction. If soldiers were allowed to conceal carry stateside in uniform on and off post, that incident would have turned out differently. As a defender of all enemies, "foreign and domestic" I am trusted to employ an arsenal of weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan but can not even slip a P-32 into my pocket or vehicle when going to work in garrison. I'm surprised more BG's don't take advantage of this fact. It's only a matter of time before soldiers will start to be openly targeted and will have no way to defend themselves.

  11. #56
    Member Array MSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    414
    I read about this on another post. I still cannot find where they have the authority to do this off-post. All authorities of commanders off post stem from one regulation/law or another. Contrary to popular belief, they can't make up whatever they want to. In other threads, people have mentioned off-limits locations, prohibitions from joining certain groups, etc. There ARE regulations for each of those that define what a commander has to do to declare a place off-limits, or a group as extremists, etc.

    I can't find a regulation anywhere authorizing a commander to dictate off-post personal weapons usage, other than to say follow the local laws.

    Here is what the manual for courts martial says regarding issuing lawful orders.
    From the MCM, Article 90—Assaulting or willfully
    disobeying superior commissioned officer

    [[With regards to lawfulness of the order:]]

    (iv) Relationship to military duty. The order
    must relate to military duty, which includes all activities
    reasonably necessary to accomplish a military
    mission, or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline,
    and usefulness of members of a command and
    directly connected with the maintenance of good order
    in the service. The order may not, without such
    a valid military purpose, interfere with private rights
    or personal affairs
    . However, the dictates of a person’s
    conscience, religion, or personal philosophy
    cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise
    lawful order. Disobedience of an order which
    has for its sole object the attainment of some private
    end, or which is given for the sole purpose of increasing
    the penalty for an offense which it is expected
    the accused may commit, is not punishable
    under this article.

    ( v ) Relationshiptostatutory or constitutional rights.
    The order must not conflict with the
    statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving
    the order.


    From the MCM, Article 92—Failure to obey order or
    regulation

    [[With regards to lawfulness of the order:]]

    (c) Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is
    lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the
    laws of the United States
    , or lawful superior orders
    or for some other reason is beyond the authority of
    the official issuing it. See the discussion of lawfulness
    in paragraph 14c(2)(a).<----refers back to the paragraph above from article 90.
    I'd be curious to know if this commander's legal council approved the order, and what source/authority they used to do so.
    Last edited by MSteve; June 3rd, 2010 at 11:16 AM. Reason: format
    AlabamaConstitution of 1819: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state.
    The world doesn't owe you anything. It was here first.-Mark Twain
    "Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."-John Wayne
    Sig P228; Micro Desert Eagle; S&W M&P Compact .357 sig

  12. #57
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,779
    Of course any army dirtbags (the type who killed the FT. Hood soldiers) will certainly follow those orders......and the other 99.999% of the good soldiers will be forced to suffer being disarmed? I hope not...perhaps this will be shoved up the backside of the commanders giving these kinds of orders.

    Our soldiers should not be disarmed at home, or on base...what a disgrace!
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  13. #58
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    I kept my handgun in the dorms for years until I moved off base. The dorms were full of weapons.

  14. #59
    Member Array Deuce130's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Destin
    Posts
    291
    I'm sure the rationale is somewhere along the lines of "force protection." Given the high suicide rate of our armed forces, the recent cases of "trust" being played, the dirtbag AQ psychiatrist owning guns without the knowledge of his superiors, and a general mistrust of young people carrying guns, the commander can make the call in the interest of safety. Much the same way they can impose more stringent rules on owning motorcycles, skydiving, bungee jumping, rock climbing, or any other dangerous activities, they can probably impose stricter rules on gun ownership. I disagree with it, but I'd be willing to bet it's perfectly legal.

  15. #60
    Member Array i10casual's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    296
    I think it is a good idea. An example of inappropriate behavior among civilians can be seen in my military town. An innocent child was shot in the head while riding his bike to school. The GI had been fighting with his girlfriend and was out of his head (which is understandable.) But he decided to kill this child in a moment of mental confusion. I know a lot of people are pro-military no matter what. But I only have to see one incident to make up my mind. I don't think we need another. I would have to trust the commanders thinking on this.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Mc vs Feds - Open military base rights? Opinion q and a.
    By tangoseal in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: July 12th, 2010, 09:34 AM
  2. Mass Shooting at Ft. Hood Texas Army Base (Merged) - Updated
    By kdydak in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 326
    Last Post: November 26th, 2009, 06:35 AM
  3. Secure your Second Amendment Rights; Talk to a soldier
    By bigiceman in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: March 1st, 2009, 10:38 AM
  4. Why attack an army base?
    By ExactlyMyPoint in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: January 26th, 2008, 09:17 AM
  5. Terrorists target Army base in Arizona
    By dunndw in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: January 8th, 2008, 06:37 PM

Search tags for this page

can a u..s soldier speak offline and off the record i to a another soldier is there a army reg

,

can soldiers carry personal weapons

,

can soldiers carry personal weapons off base

,

can soldiers carry personal weapons off duty

,

can soldiers carry weapons off base

,
can soldiers carry weapons off duty
,

eglin bx guns

,

fort sill privately owned weapons range

,
how much is a soldier given to live off-base?
,
law that states that off duty soldiers cannot carry guns
,
privately owned weapons on fort sill
,
us army military rights for soldiers forum
,
usarak weapons registration
,
what act prevented federal troops having loaded weapons off base
,
www.wainwright.army.mil/65eod
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors