oldbanger
Regular Member
While off military installations, Soldiers are required to follow Alaska law.
Repeal of Concealed Firearm Policy.pdf
Repeal of Concealed Firearm Policy.pdf
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Army Soldiers carrying concealed firearms
- Thread starter oldbanger
- Start date
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
They've always been required to follow Alaskan law.... but now they're 'allowed to' 
And I agree, it's a GOOD Thing.
And I agree, it's a GOOD Thing.
Last edited:
cloudcroft
Campaign Veteran
"Carrying of concealed firearms may represent a significant risk to the safety and welfare of Soldiers in this command." -- THOMAS J. ROTH, COL, EN, Commanding
I'd say that the OPEN carrying of firearms by soldiers could be pretty "risky" also...TO THE ENEMY! ;-)
Really though, if you can trust soldiers with small arms & heavy weapons during combat, you SHOULD be able to trust them at home in peacetime, even if OCing their personal arms ON BASE (presently illegal), let alone OFF base on their own time and business.
Seems that both soldiers and civilians alike are treated as criminals (potential or actual) right up front -- before proving otherwise. I think the concept "innocent until proven guilty" should still apply in America. Silly me...
I'd say that the OPEN carrying of firearms by soldiers could be pretty "risky" also...TO THE ENEMY! ;-)
Really though, if you can trust soldiers with small arms & heavy weapons during combat, you SHOULD be able to trust them at home in peacetime, even if OCing their personal arms ON BASE (presently illegal), let alone OFF base on their own time and business.
Seems that both soldiers and civilians alike are treated as criminals (potential or actual) right up front -- before proving otherwise. I think the concept "innocent until proven guilty" should still apply in America. Silly me...
Last edited:
DWCook
Activist Member
I agree, if the government has trusted this troop to carry a deadly weapon into battle and be responsible, how come they cant during peace time? I will have to say most military members have more experience with firearms and what they are capable of than most civilians. The old conflict I enjoy hearing is this one, I have taken more classes of shooting than your standard training in the military. No matter how much training you do to better yourself, it does not prepare you for when you have to defend yourself and the emotional state it brings. There is a difference between knowing how to use a firearm, and actually knowing the results of using it. Not bashing anyone here who isn't military or was never military, but I have to put out that the you will not gain the actual feeling of using a firearm until you have actually had to use it to defend yourself or family.
All I'm saying is you can have all the training you can get your hands on, but it does not prepare you for when you have to use this training against another person. You can have all the range time and practice you want, but are you willing to shoot someone in self defense and live with it is the question. We can all say yes to that question, but can you live with it is the question.
This was by means not to offend anyone here, this is just how I feel about this particular topic.
I understand some of my points here are a bit off topic and I apologize for that, but I just had to speak out on this one.
All I'm saying is you can have all the training you can get your hands on, but it does not prepare you for when you have to use this training against another person. You can have all the range time and practice you want, but are you willing to shoot someone in self defense and live with it is the question. We can all say yes to that question, but can you live with it is the question.
This was by means not to offend anyone here, this is just how I feel about this particular topic.
I understand some of my points here are a bit off topic and I apologize for that, but I just had to speak out on this one.
Last edited:
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
It's a Brigade CO playing CYOA. He's prob'ly an anti-gun type... only associating guns with uniformed duties. If he had his act together he'd know AK is an open or concealed carry state... w/o permits. If he was really up to snuff he'd have that co-authored by the area JAG adjutant. Nobody's gonna carry openly in uniform (uniform regs apply) or on the installations (Army regs apply), but in civvies... it's the same for military as civilians.
It's about time. I was stationed there when the CG (at the time) prohibited off-installation concealed carry for active duty Soldiers. Yes that's right.. we couldn't carry concealed at all regardless of Alaska law and could be punished under the UCMJ if found violating it. I didn't expect it to last this long but it's nice to know this policy is finally revoked. Hopefully I can get stationed back there, sure do miss it!
VinnAY
Regular Member
Any of us Vet's knows about gun registration at the PMO/Security Forces, storage in the armory, ban of CCW on base...the military does more to subvert your rights than any one single entity in this country.
Not technically. You VOLUNTEER to become US Government property, and you actually sign away many of your "rights" when you do so.
Drafted individuals had more civil rights while in the service than did volunteers, from what I was told.
armaborealis
Regular Member
I was always kind of hoping a soldier would show up to some unit social function (off base of course) open carrying. The CG's policy never said anything about open carry, after all!
The only reason that USARAK changed the policy was because congress prohibited the DoD from implementing such policies during the NDAA last year. Don't think for a moment that the Army had a change of heart...
The only reason that USARAK changed the policy was because congress prohibited the DoD from implementing such policies during the NDAA last year. Don't think for a moment that the Army had a change of heart...
DWCook
Activist Member
Late response, but this is good that troops are allowed to do this. I honestly never knew for a long time that troops off base weren't allowed to conceal carry even though it is legal by the state. I am a prior Air Force active duty member and wish I could have been stationed at the Anchorage Air Base, but never got the chance. But honestly I am glad I didn't at that point in time considering I wouldn't be able to conceal. I would open carry without any problems.
Last edited:
Cavalryman
Campaign Veteran
COL Roth is not anti-gun but as the commander, he does have to deal with the fallout from the occasional bonehead Soldier who can't act responsibly. Yes, it's CYA but after all it's his A. All he did was require that commanders point out to the Soldiers what the law is and what their responsibilities and liabilities are under the law. In practice, it hasn't discouraged anyone from carrying. In fact, a few Soldiers who didn't know they could carry have begun to do so.
BigHPacking
New member
Hey, I was there then as well in 4/25 ABN, 725 BSB. I still carried concealed. If it's truly concealed, nobody sees it to know otherwise.
Please enlighten me on where I can find that I have signed my rights away when joining the military. I can't find it in the Oath of Enlistment or UCMJ. I am in the military and I have rights.
davidmcbeth
Banned
+1 ... I love soldiers complaining ... hahahaha suckers .... (from a vet who could never carry on base)
I see you are from Illinois. Perhaps you are unaware of the rights most people outside of your state enjoy. It may be hard for you to see the difference.
Please note that I did not say it was necessarily bad for soldiers to waive some of these rights. But the fact that you have done so should not be in dispute.
Not from Illinois, but stationed in Illinois. Actually I am in Georgia at the moment where I am enjoying carrying anywhere a LEO can carry. Perhaps you missed the great news for IL last year. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...11_1_court-strikes-appeals-court-david-sigale If lawmakers can't come up with something by June, we will have Constitutional Carry in IL.
Last edited:
Actually, I've been hearing about that. This may be very interesting to watch, because the politicians may be in such disagreement on how to avoid it that they'll get it because of their inaction!
I hope it happens because it will be especially interesting to see how the police act when they encounter it, though I have a feeling the brave souls who dare to exercise their rights first may pay a long price before they are vindicated.
Last edited:
MagiK_SacK
Regular Member
+1
Mangel is right. What rights have we signed away? If you refer to not being able to carry on base, or random locker/barracks inspections, or random vehicle inspections at the gate, you are highly mistaken. We didn't sign those rights away. It is no different than and requirements your private employer might require. How many people on this forum have jobs that are not in security that are able to carry at work? I am willing to bet not very many. If you want to argue parking lot rules, you have to realize this is federal property we are talking about and not being allowed to bring a firearm on base applies to everybody not just military personnel. So that is one right that I didn't "sign" away. The same can be said for the other few examples I gave. Not that it is anything I agree with but it's a condition of taking the job. That goes for military, DOD employees, civilian contractors, ect. Off base I have the same rights that any other person has. So I second the question, where can I find that I have signed my rights away?
Actually, that's an excellent analogy. Many people have signed away some rights for their employer even if only for a specified period of time. I really don't want this to turn into another argument about words.
I was in the military. While in, there were certain things I was not allowed to do! I signed up for that. I didn't think someone would have an issue with my phrasing, so perhaps that is the only issue?