Posted on 03/19/2006 8:25:01 PM PST by Graybeard58
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."
Staff writer Margaret Friedenauer can be reached at 459-7545 or by e-mail at mfriedenauer@newsminer.com .
.
Transcript: Gen. PETER PACE on 'FOX News Sunday'
http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1546978/posts
.
Seriously, the issue here is clearly one of training. I don't see why the military doesn't treat rules of engagement as seriously within the United States as it does without. You have to know this stuff if you're going to bear arms responsibly and it is the military's job to bear arms. A General assigned to Alaska who doesn't communicate Alaska ROE to his troops is a General who is cutting corners on his job, and prohibiting them from carry where it's legal is not the solution. IMHO.
Wouldn't bet the house on it.
The Jount Chiefs will not utter a word, the military dosen't like guns not under their control.
Jack
This guy Maj. Kirk Gohlke is a real jerk. The US army has relegated its Alaskan personnel to 2nd class citizenship.
Make that Joint Chiefs
Jack
All it means is don't shoot anyone or get in any gun related trouble while you are off post. As my old Drill Sergeant used to say, "If you're going to do something wrong, do it right."
Absolutely, at least regarding Alaska. You'd want to brief your people about local rules wherever they are - those are much more restrictive in Maryland, for example, than Texas. In Idaho you can be arrested for owning too few firearms... ;-)
Well RATS!!
I had hoped Nebraska would pass its "Carry Bill", so I could "Gift" the cost of a permit to my neighbor. He is active duty, Air Force, in Omaha. He is the kind of person that should be armed. He has the training, judgement and Attitude. If the JCOS won't let Servicemen be our best neighbors, we are screwed.
Hardly. High-ranking officers are no better than politicians, eager to please and appease.
No personally-owned firearms were allowed on any of the bases I've ever been stationed at/lived on. Not to say that people didn't have them, mind you, but if you were caught and were disliked by the brass...
Not cheap. I saw a 4" model at a gun show recently for $1,000.
Ammo's expensive too.
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.
Now the domestic islammonazi Jihad terrorists will know that they can "settle scores" over what might have previously happened in combat against particular soldiers even after said soldier returns to the US, without having to worry about it even being a fair fight.
Then our Troops in harms way in the sandbox will have to worry about potential retaliation every time he picks off or rounds up a Talliban or AlQuida thug.
"Home" will no longer be sanctuary, now that military politicians have taken away the Serviceperson's right of self-defense off post.
If off-duty soldiers start getting kidnapped or murdered when they stray off post, then they may have to confine themselves to the security of their base, as they do in the "Green Zone" in Bagdhad.
Won't that be just lovely?
NM is a shall issue CW state subject to the usual caveats.
Has been for a couple of years now.
For state by state policies see www.packing.org
so what happened to "only police officers and soldiers are properly trained to carry weapons?" now soldiers aren't properly trained?
This is talking about 'off post' being banned. Not 'on post'.
I read that Idaho is being invaded by lefties from California. From reading the Statewman, I have to wonder if gun rights are safe there??
sounds like the anti's want to go after carry in AK because it's one of the most pro-carry states in existance.
pretty lame to drag the carry issue into a case involving
an AK and a shotgun.
was Wilkins some kind of wannabe rap star?
I'm aware of that -- I thought I made that clear in my comment: "The policy of 'no concealed carry on post' even in those states that allow it has been in place for many many years now. The Joint Chiefs have never overturned that. Why do you think they would overrturn this?"
The point being that they never overturned something wholly under their jurisdiction before, so why would they bother now? Besides, as I said, the JCS does not get involved in things like this. They are a war-fighting structure. Administrative rules like this from a local commander are not what they deal with. Never have been.
More typically the Democrats get their veterans from the Navy I believe, but that is just anecdotal. Duckworth comes to mind as a soldier who may be elected and will be a liberal. Sadly, the republicans in that district have a tough time finding somebody who was man enough to serve in uniform.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.