What I would like to see.. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : What I would like to see..


fxdwngflyr
02-11-2006, 16:03
Allowed carry on military bases by active duty military. That would please me alot. We could even restrict it to senior nco's and field grade officers and above.

I carry in virginia and have to leave early in the am and return late in the pm. I would like to carry enroute to and from work. Cannot do this now because we are not allowed to carry on base.

Would also like to take my firearm to the war.

M1 SUPER 90
02-11-2006, 19:51
I'm with ya all the way!:cool:

hi speed
02-11-2006, 20:14
Isn't it funny they make make it so hard for us. I'm with you cuz killeen tx. has an overwhelming crime and disorder problem. Seems freeloaders tend to flock to service communities. they make it hard for us to protect what little bit we do have. Not to mention I had to go to iraq just to afford most of it...........

MP1SG
02-11-2006, 21:24
That will never happen. Besides being the law, the military culture of control and double standards would never be so liberal.

Black Tiger
02-11-2006, 23:39
This might be considered sacrilege upon my part, but I am against that idea. I am an Army MP and the idea of soldiers carrying in their off time is just asking for trouble. I have had to deal with drunk and disorderly soldiers in the past while working garisson duty and I can't imagine the idea of having a drunk soldier get in an argument over a poolhall bet or into an argument over "another guy looking at my girl" kind of situation and have this individual armed with a firearm on post.

Nope! Wrong answer! That's just asking for a shootout. my detachment had situation involving an NCO and his divorced wife (who had an affair with another soldier in the base) kidnap his 3 year old daughter and locking himself at the guest house a few years back and it was a delicate situation that required us to cordon off the guest house, get all the guests out, bring in the SRT and a CID negotiator; it all ended peacefully, but I can imagine the outcome if alcohol and a firearm was involved.

Take it as you may, but I personally prefer that the MPs be the only soldiers walking around post with a weapon on their belts.

hi speed
02-12-2006, 00:32
Hey man these soldiers would be doing worse things if it was not for you guys so high five to you. BUT, not all service members are societies throw backs. I for one do not think that the rights i would die to deffend should be discounted becouse of the Idiotic actions of dumb a**es. Give you a gun to shoot my enimies the army does but ******* you if you have to protect yourself against your own. be it an intruder or car jacker or bank robber or jody or whomever. Can't wait to get out. this holier than thou b.s. has gone way to far. I see that you have a point about drunken soldiers but, the military trusts us enough to carry in defense of this nation. This hypocricy is on par with every other law in the armed service. I'm not an army hater but I do see this problem making it hard for people like myself to want to re up and subject ourselves to the OVERWHELMING bull s***. As for mp,s only..lol.. looks like you win but keep in mind they make mistakes too. Dont end up being the leo on the street at night with that attitude cuz it don't fly with civillians. I know b/c i was an leo who had a gun control nut as a partner and she thought nobody should carry but leo's. This opinion coincided with her overall way of thinking and ultimately led to her demise as an leo.

Black Tiger
02-12-2006, 01:27
I think this goes in unison with the dilema of underage drinking in the military; soldiers that are 17 or 18 should be allowed to drink (IMHO); if they are old enough to go to war and kill and perhaps get killed for their country, giving them the chance to have a cold brew with their buddies seems human enough to me.

As for being able to carry on post, I see it with a weary eye, but that's just me.

fxdwngflyr
02-12-2006, 17:10
Originally posted by Black Tiger
This might be considered sacrilege upon my part, but I am against that idea. I am an Army MP and the idea of soldiers carrying in their off time is just asking for trouble. I have had to deal with drunk and disorderly soldiers in the past while working garisson duty and I can't imagine the idea of having a drunk soldier get in an argument over a poolhall bet or into an argument over "another guy looking at my girl" kind of situation and have this individual armed with a firearm on post.

Nope! Wrong answer! That's just asking for a shootout. my detachment had situation involving an NCO and his divorced wife (who had an affair with another soldier in the base) kidnap his 3 year old daughter and locking himself at the guest house a few years back and it was a delicate situation that required us to cordon off the guest house, get all the guests out, bring in the SRT and a CID negotiator; it all ended peacefully, but I can imagine the outcome if alcohol and a firearm was involved.

Take it as you may, but I personally prefer that the MPs be the only soldiers walking around post with a weapon on their belts.

I can appreciate your view. I feel it is tainted.

"the idea of soldiers carrying in their off time is just asking for trouble."



1)

jotto
02-12-2006, 17:12
Originally posted by hi speed
Isn't it funny they make make it so hard for us. I'm with you cuz killeen tx. has an overwhelming crime and disorder problem. Seems freeloaders tend to flock to service communities. they make it hard for us to protect what little bit we do have. Not to mention I had to go to iraq just to afford most of it...........

I was stationed at Hood from 1994 to 2000. Sorry to hear Killeen is still a crap hole. I ended up moving to Austin for my last 2 years there. The drive sucked but when I was home it was so much nicer than living in Killeen.

fxdwngflyr
02-12-2006, 17:15
OOPS!!

Anyway, I already carry on my off duty time. Heck, I carry legally on duty sometimes. There are always a few who will mess things up but we need to remember that if I were a bad guy I dont need your permission to carry. I will anyway. I will do what I want regardless of the law. This is the reason gun control does not work. Criminals dont obey the law.

MP's have problem children also. To tell the truth I dont trust MP's with their sidearms. They have no respect for it. To them it is like carrying a canteen on your hip.

We need to remember not to hold the law abiding masses to rules set up for the criminals.

fxdwngflyr
02-12-2006, 17:19
Hey Black Tiger, were you in PR in 01-02. I was on Rosey with SOCSOUTH

MP1SG
02-12-2006, 17:23
Originally posted by Black Tiger
This might be considered sacrilege upon my part, but I am against that idea. I am an Army MP and the idea of soldiers carrying in their off time is just asking for trouble. I have had to deal with drunk and disorderly soldiers in the past while working garisson duty and I can't imagine the idea of having a drunk soldier get in an argument over a poolhall bet or into an argument over "another guy looking at my girl" kind of situation and have this individual armed with a firearm on post.

Nope! Wrong answer! That's just asking for a shootout. my detachment had situation involving an NCO and his divorced wife (who had an affair with another soldier in the base) kidnap his 3 year old daughter and locking himself at the guest house a few years back and it was a delicate situation that required us to cordon off the guest house, get all the guests out, bring in the SRT and a CID negotiator; it all ended peacefully, but I can imagine the outcome if alcohol and a firearm was involved.

Take it as you may, but I personally prefer that the MPs be the only soldiers walking around post with a weapon on their belts.
I understand what you are trying to say, but CCW are allowed in many states. There hasn't been an uprising in shootings because of CCW. You aren't accounting for those who will ilegally and commit the crimes. Your opinon is like many anti-gunners, take the guns from the citizens that abey the laws and only the bad guys will have them. I suggest you move to DC, or NYC where extreme gun control rules.

Black Tiger
02-13-2006, 21:00
Originally posted by MP1SG
I understand what you are trying to say, but CCW are allowed in many states. There hasn't been an uprising in shootings because of CCW. You aren't accounting for those who will ilegally and commit the crimes. Your opinon is like many anti-gunners, take the guns from the citizens that obey the laws and only the bad guys will have them. I suggest you move to DC, or NYC where extreme gun control rules.

I live in FL and I am a CWP Holder. I refused a job with the CIA as an SPO, mainly because DC has some of the stringent gun laws in the nation, second only perhaps to NY and NJ. I am very pro-gun and your assumption is completely wrong. I believe that ALL law-abidding citizens SHOULD be able to own and carry firearms.

However, the concept of carrying personally owned firearms inside a military installation rubs me wrong; I carried my own pistol on post and I felt that turning my weapon over to the shift SGT at the station was a neccesary evil.

Is just my opinion; we can agree to disagree.

Black Tiger
02-13-2006, 21:13
Originally posted by fxdwngflyr
Hey Black Tiger, were you in PR in 01-02. I was on Rosey with SOCSOUTH

Yes, I was working with the Garisson MP Detachment there. The CG was MG Valenzuela.

Linh40
02-14-2006, 01:36
If they allowed carry on post then most Soldiers would carry BUT we already have lots of drunk drivers so add alcohol with 2 weapons (a car and now a gun) We already got lots of homocide after the war and spouse abuse so adding a gun isn't gonna help.

As for keeping this to higher nco and field officers while I know some officers that do some crazy things. Of course there are less officers that get in trouble since there are fewer of them but overall I think the percentage is the same for lower enlisted and higher ncos and field officers. Just my opinion and things that I have observed.

fxdwngflyr
02-14-2006, 10:52
I understand your "senior NCO/Field grade officer" thought process. The ONLY two reasons I say that is because most of the time they have so much invested in the military that they could be expected to do the right thing to save thier careers and maturity level with age. I also have seen the above mentioned chose to screw things up.

Back to the subject, people are going to do stupid stuff. If we chose to restrict all because of a few then we might as well stop all rights that we as americans hold to be true. That would mean no one can own a car, use alcohol, ride on escalators, own motorcycles, fly planes, etc. We must chose to focus on the numbers. If 75% of the population used guns for the wrong then by all means restrict them. That is not the case, especially with the military. The numbers would be 1% and thats rounding up. So lets shoot real numbers and get off the "scared" mentality. Alot more crimes would be stopped if all the "victims" were armed.

Black Tiger
02-15-2006, 11:09
Originally posted by fxdwngflyr
If we chose to restrict all because of a few then we might as well stop all rights that we as americans hold to be true. That would mean no one can own a car, use alcohol, ride on escalators, own motorcycles, fly planes, etc.

My premise is not of restricting anything; I am well aware that the majority of the US population is law abbiding and that they will do the right thing. However, we don't base our current laws on the law abbiding portion of the population, we base it on that small percentage that will do the wrong thing to minimize their impact on the rest of us.

Besides, what do you need a firearm on post anyways? If you carry because you work on post and your commute takes you around town (off-post) during early and late hours and you are concerned about your personal safety, then that's understandable; just go on post, stop at the MP Station and turn your weapon in, then when you are done, just pick it up, lock and load and you are on your way. I have not restricted your constituional right to keep & bear arms in any way, shape or form.

All I am saying is that people that come into a military installation should turn their weapons into the MPs, take care of their personal business and on their way out, pick their personal weapon back up and that's it.

My opinion is based on my experiences as a garisson MP and as a member of the law enforcement community.

I understand your "senior NCO/Field grade officer" thought process. The ONLY two reasons I say that is because most of the time they have so much invested in the military that they could be expected to do the right thing to save thier careers and maturity level with age. I also have seen the above mentioned chose to screw things up.[/QUOTE]

Being a senior NCO/Officer does not mean anything; remember the incidents in Ft. Bragg, where SF Soldiers killed their wives after returning from Afghanistan and finding out that their wives were cheating on them?

These are not your avereage rank & file soldiers; these were SF soldiers; professionals in the full sense of the word; men who are on avereage E-6s and E-7s with at least 6-8 years in the service and responsible for a myriad of "off the books" operations that are vital to National Security. If these professionals can, in the heat of the moment, do something like killing their spouses in a fit of rage; imagine what your average 22 year old SPC, who is drunk and just got into a fight at the club over something as trivial as losing around of pool...

You know where I am going.

How many people die needlessly over stupid stuff on the outside, like looking at someone else's girl, or a bad stare, or a case of road rage?

Is not a question of rights, is a question of common sense.

fxdwngflyr
02-15-2006, 11:45
Not really sure where you were stationed but on this installation you cannot turn in your weapon at the gate. I cant even get Soldiers that drive through a formation on purpose detained at the MP station. I read the 190 series regs and also the SOP for this post. I just wish it was protect and serve. As a leader in a unit of 350+ I have had no support from the MP's. Nothing like LEO. You will be ticketed for attempting to bring it on post and until you get the arms room card you will be held to that ticket.

As far as the laws go and how they are made it does not apply to post regulations. Different animal all together.

I have heard your point, I disagree.

fxdwngflyr
02-15-2006, 11:47
and reference my post comment "maturity with age".

MP1SG
02-15-2006, 13:05
We all have valid views on this topic. Of course we aren't going to change anything, so let's get keg and go shootin.

Black Tiger
02-15-2006, 17:06
Originally posted by MP1SG
We all have valid views on this topic. Of course we aren't going to change anything, so let's get a keg and go shootin.

Cool beans! I'll get the grill and the steaks (and the extra .45ACP ammo).

AirCav
02-15-2006, 20:12
...I changed my mind. Why bother?

fastshoota
02-15-2006, 21:02
"We could even restrict it to senior nco's and field grade officers and above."


so then you might aswell just do it, they get away with everything anyway

fxdwngflyr
02-16-2006, 08:04
Beer good.

yeah, the topic will never come to its own. Just a dream. Hell, I cant even use the post range for shooting with my POW.

Good Run Gentlemen;)

Rick27
02-19-2006, 04:20
I am active duty stationed at Ft Bragg, NC. Currently I am TDY at Ft Benning. I am use to carying my Glock 27 on road trips due to the fact that I refuse to rest my fate in the "good intention of others". Lets face it, there are a lot of criminals out there and our friends in law enforcement cant be every where at once.
I dont see the issue with carying on post if you have the proper license. When I do a road march or any type of training I cary my M4 around with a magazine in (empty). It never catches any attention, infact it is almost the norm. Most assume it is empty just as I assume that others are empty as well. It would be very easy to have a loaded mag in....stupid, but easy.
In OEF I and everyone else carried a loaded rifle and or pistol (round in the chamber) every where, when I was in a secure area it was still loaded but the chamber was clear. this was a unit SOP. due to training and disicipline we never had a negligent discharge.
I will also say that some people in the military have no business carying a weapon regardless of rank, they have no sence of muzzel awarness or the damage that the "boom stick" they are carying can cause....Hell, those people should probably be issued a small can of mace and a whistle. I'm not only talking about Combat Service Support Units, but Combat units as well.
My point is this....if you have the training and certification why not be able to cary on post? I still have to drive through some rough areas to get to post and thankfully I have never had a need to use the pistiol.
As a result of the potential consequenses I descided to leave my 27 at the house back at bragg. Man, I felt almost naked driving without it.
I'll get off of me soap box now.
SFC Hake
7th Special Forces

fxdwngflyr
02-19-2006, 08:02
Here is an example of what I was talking about.

SGT Hernandez was driving home from work. The time was 1830 and the road was busy. Another car drove up and shot SGT Hernandez in the face. He was injured, round hit his jaw, but he was able to call and get help. He was not carrying.

I spent 11 years at campbell and really had no need to be packing, of course anything could have happened, but now I am in a large metro area and dont dare drive east without being armed. Same thing as bragg. I hated going TDY there. Too many issues. We were TDY there for 2 weeks. The first night we came back from the movies and could not get into our hotel rooms because they were taped off because of a drive by on the first floor.

hi speed
02-19-2006, 09:14
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rick27
[B]I'm not only talking about Combat Service Support Units, but Combat units as well.
Thank you for your honesty SFC. Here in Ktown TX the crime is beyond report and I must admit to a shooting here 4 days ago. A female soldier's husband confronted her at a P.t. formation about her cheating. As this progressed he was asked to leave. Upon exiting the company area in his car he shot several times at the formation. Nobody was injured, but I think it was by the grace of god. The perp was later cought and denied bail. He is not a service member. I personally have a store owner keep my G32 behind the counter and pick it up right outside the gate. He's open 24/7 and his employees now me by name. Just so happens were in the same gun club and he offered to accomidate my request. Like you, I'll be damned if I give up my car to some non working crackhead looking for a joy ride. I don't even check my mail without my gun. The crime here is as bad as I've ever seen or heard of. There are ways around post rules but you'll definately go out of your way to maintain a better level of security. Self preservation is a god given thing that the army cannot take away. They even rely on it.

Tell 'em Fred
02-19-2006, 11:56
Killeen does have a criminal problem,crime went up over 60% since September 2005.I wonder why?

hi speed
02-19-2006, 13:21
The guy I cought breaking in to my truck was a gang bangin crack dealer. I make no assumptions. Your thoughts are?

fxdwngflyr
02-22-2006, 11:50
Approach with caution, dont allow to close the distance, shoot if threatened.

I want to carry. Here is the real heartbreaker. I just got orders to Germany and have to sell my G30. That sucks. I have tried to get the certificate to bring the weapon into Germany but cant until I get there and take the test. Bummer!!!!:(

AK_Stick
02-27-2006, 03:08
I think everyone should be able to carry. Why should my rights be restricted because I defend them? Do you think that civilians should be allowed to carry concealed? if so, how can you stand there and tell me that the soldiers who defend that right not be allowed to carry?


Fact is, that its no more dangerous to let me carry a pistol than it is to have a 21 year old working on a black hawk. If I wanted to do damamge to somthing, I have a 12 million doller aircraft I can use instead of a pistol. You trust 90% of us with automatic weapons, grenades and knives, but we cant carry a pistol in our off time? Somewhere your argument hit a brick wall buddy.

fxdwngflyr
02-28-2006, 12:10
Right On. Good call!

fxdwngflyr
02-28-2006, 12:12
21 y/o PVT Mikel carries his POF, .357 cal, to formation and opens fire. Fires five rounds.

Could have been stopped if others were armed.

ALLOW CARRY!!!

Meat-Hook
02-28-2006, 22:35
What would I like to see?

1. Not a single soldier who wears
headgear that says: "Made in China".
It just burns me to think that our soldiers
have to wear Chicom head attire.

2. The ending of all soldiers wearing black
berets which was stolen from the Ranger Regiments.
And returing all NON-airborne unites to wearing
patrol caps.

--and on that note, a vote be circulated to all Rangers
both past and present. To decide whether they want to
keep the current sand/beige beret or return to the black.??

3. That the legal drinking age be returned to the age
of 18 like it was before all this so-called "political
correctness" horse*****.

Im a firm believer that if they are old enough to have/or risk,
their bodies blown to smithereens by a roadside IED, and
survive,...they should be legally allowed to drink a cold
beer in peace.

4. On the subject of concealed carry for active duty
troops. A few thoughts:

-They cant! Federal troops are under Federal command/law.
The Federal government does not issue CCW, nor do they
recognize any States CCW on Federal property. When they
travel from Base, to off-base,..they are crossing from
Federal jurisdiction to State turf. And likewise. So
they would need 2 permits unless the law was changed. Or
unless they issued a Federal or "United States CCW". Which
I dont think we will ever see in our lifetimes.

Back in the "Wild West" days they had it. I think back then
they called it the 2nd Amendment?

Having said that, if the law was changed somehow, theres some
logistics involved. Primarily troops who live in barracks.
Troops are not allowed weapons in their barracks rooms to
my knowlege. Any weapons, especially firearms,..must be stored
in the arms room. The problem with that is the red tape.
Weapons must be signed in, and signed out. But in order to
sign them out you need to have a armorer on duty. In order to
be effective, that most likely would need to be a 24 hour
operation. If not,...you can only access your weapon Monday to
Friday, 9-5, ..so to speak. Anything outside of that, no dice.
The firearm is locked inside a vault. And you cant get to it.
So the only other exception would be married soldiers. They enjoy
all the benefits of living off base or in base housing. Slightly
unfair.

And of course,..in order to comply with todays carry laws,..all soldiers must be over 21 years old. Anything under that would be illegal.

There will always be screw ups when you are talking about thousands, if not hundreds-of-thousands. And as the years go by,..millions of people who serve in the military. Just like the civilian world does.

So, will somebody commit a crime with a gun if the military was permitted CCW?? Yup! eventually out of all those millions who serve over the years,..eventually they would. But per capita,...the rate would be low. If not non-existant.

The military, compared to the civilain, big cities, are an extremely well disciplined enviroment. The military endures ***** that the civilains never could/will stand for.

Besides,....do you think our military in Iraq is carrying loaded firearms in Iraq 24/7???? I dont know. Ive never served in Iraq, but I think given the circumstances, it might be a good idea.

But now suddenly when they return Stateside,...now they cannot be trusted. Now they are dangerous people armed with guns?

So far,...in this country we dont deny people firearms, or
anything else for that matter because they "might" commit a
crime sometime in the future with it. So long as they pass
the background check, ect,ect,ect. Should they in fact commit
a crime with it in the future, then thats it. They get one
chance only. After that, its off to the slammer and never to
legally own firearms again.

end of story.
----
MH>

fxdwngflyr
03-01-2006, 09:54
Well written reply.

You are right, there are logistical and administrative hurdles to get over.

Easily the Fed could pass a bill that allowed all A/D military to be permitted to carry a concealed weapon. This being federal law passed to the states it would be upheld. As far as the armor goes it would not be required because Soldiers could keep thier arms with them in thier rooms. Just like a house or apartment.

We already have some that are using weapons to inflict harm on other Soldiers. But by doing this we would be allowing all to be armed and if needs be protect themselves.

We are carrying 24/7 in the sandbox. We could do it here also. We just have to get over ourselves.

{TEX}Hawaii 5-0
03-15-2006, 18:55
carrying wouldn't work in todays army. We have enough problems with POWs as it is. Just allowing it to a certain rank wouldn't be equitable.

fxdwngflyr
03-15-2006, 19:53
OK, here is my new question.

Why will it not work or why is it opposed by some if it is working in the civilian world. Are we not the same as they are. Hell I think we are actually better in some aspects. Sure we have a few troublemakers but that is everywhere. But because of a few bad apples we are going to sacrifice what makes america great? Individual rights.

BRAVHART
03-16-2006, 03:52
Originally posted by fxdwngflyr
Allowed carry on military bases by active duty military. That would please me alot. We could even restrict it to senior nco's and field grade officers and above.

I carry in virginia and have to leave early in the am and return late in the pm. I would like to carry enroute to and from work. Cannot do this now because we are not allowed to carry on base.

Would also like to take my firearm to the war.

Well i was with ya till the Field grade officers and senior NCOs BS.:(

AirCav
03-16-2006, 06:50
Originally posted by BRAVHART
Well i was with ya till the Field grade officers and senior NCOs BS.:( +1.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Sound familiar?

fxdwngflyr
03-16-2006, 11:59
Foot in the door. Just like all political crap you need to get your foot in the door.

As I stated in my earlier posts the only reason I say that is that they have more to lose than others. Usually by this time they have decided to make a career out of the military and dont want to screw that up. This versus the new Soldiers that are enlisting for the $91,000.

Again foot in the door. Dont be mad, just my opinion.

Cav
03-20-2006, 21:36
Its the Generals base, so what ever he feels is best is fine by me.

Think about all the soldiers in your Unit and others. Would you trut all of them to carry all the time, even at work with rounds loaded? Remember if they are serving they meet the carry laws as a whole.

fxdwngflyr
03-23-2006, 18:16
US Army Alaska Commander pens policy to not allow Soldiers to carry at all off base!

Here is the link http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~7244~3271592,00.html

Here is the story:

Army tightens weapons policy
By MARGARET FRIEDENAUER, Staff Writer
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.
OTHER ARTICLES IN THIS SECTION
3/23/2006
- Road guidelines raise questions
- Scientist: Another dry, smoky summer on tap
- Assembly to weigh retirement project
- Lund, banker and community leader, honored
- Bluegrass scenes collide this weekend
- Family drama gets heavy in 'Cat on a Hot Tin Roof'
- Pulitzer winner to speak
- ORV use in Denali National Park eyed
- Police Report
- Army seeks comment on training range site

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 .

:frown: :frown: :frown: