Thursday, December 4, 2008

AK: Fort Richardson Soldier Dead Due to Army Policy

Unbelievable. Major General Stephan Layfield of Fort Richardson trusts his soldiers to bear full auto weapons when on base or on foreign battle fields to defend our Nation, but when it comes to defending their own lives on our streets, he disarms them of all weapons capable of causing physical injury. Not only is that unconstitutional, it's disgraceful.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY ALASKA
724 POSTAL SERVICE LOOP #5000
FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA 99505-5000
APVR-RUPM
20 Sep 2007
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-

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 firearm 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 apartments 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.

STEPHEN R. LAYFIELD.
Major General, USA
Commanding

DISTRIBUTION:
A
As a direct result of that idiotic Fort Richardson Army Policy, Army Sgt. Evan Minnear was defenseless when he was shot & killed by a Felon walking the streets of Anchorage Alaska who was already on probation for a previous Felony Assault. Army Sgt. Evan Minnear survived a 15 month tour in Iraq, but once home & disarmed he was unable to survive our city streets. Major General Stephan Layfield and anyone else in command above him responsible for disarming our soldiers have his blood on their hands. My sincere condolences to the family of Army Sgt. Evan Minnear, may he rest in peace.

12 comments:

Ride Fast said...

That is about the dumbest military policy decision I've heard in years. What a tragedy.

Daniel Short said...

Dishonorable discharge, no pension and life sentence of walking the streets without protection is what this bozo should get. I think I will call my congressman.

km said...

Perhaps this is more of a case of 1) We use guns to do "our" job. 2) We don't value the person to allow them to protect themselves.
Seems very sad. That a trained individual suffered for a very poor policy. May God bless the family. I hope this leads to a change of leadership and thought process in our armed forces.

Phillip said...

Something that's been going through my head a lot lately is "When are we going to get off defense and start going offensively after people that disarm us?"

I'm sure that there are personal injury lawyers that will take a wrongful death case in this instance. And why can't we press criminal charges? If there are laws saying we can't, then we need to fight that too.

Yeah, I know. The world isn't that simple. I still think we should be trying, though.

Marcus said...

This is actually a pretty common practice on military installations. Most military members must register their weapons on post, and are normally forbidden from carrying them around.

This is particularly idiotic since the Army has recently instituted "weapons immersion training," and have begun allowing service members to carry weapons their duty weapons virtually everywhere--even to Burger King on post. In view of the recent "Heller" ruling, and common practices, the banning of military members from carrying their own personally owned weapons makes little sense, and is very likely illegal.

Marcus

Anonymous said...

Not that this makes it better, but...
The motivation behind the regulation is out of control gang activity in the military in Alaska. Rather than deal with the gang activity and putting those jokers in jail, they decided to restrict their use of weapons.
I do believe they are still allowed to open carry off-base, unless they changed that rule.

Dustin said...

That's really smart of them. Tell the drug gang criminals they are not allowed to carry weapons while they engage in their illegal drug trafficking, as if they'd obey that rule when they're willing to break all of the drug & gang laws. Typical of government think.

Bob G. said...

Oh God, that is SO Federal governmental....baffle the masses with BS.

Then let military personnel carry OPENLY on their damn HIP!
They're protecting everyone else's ASS both HERE and ABROAD for God's sake!.
Let them protect THEIR OWN.

Someone needs to get that dumbass law changed...it's already cost us one of our warriors.
We need not lose any more.

'Nuff said.

B.G.

Anonymous said...

FWIW: As far as I can tell from all of the stories in the papers up here (AK), this Soldier was killed while he was out drinking with his girlfriend. If he was going into an establishment that "...serves alcohol for consumption on the premises...", or if he was already intoxicated, he was barred from carrying in those two cases alone. Now don't take this to mean that the General's standing order is right, moral or ethical, but the situation would have been outside of his control anyhow.
ON THE OTHER HAND:
He was shot by a convicted felon...after he (soldier) attempted to talk the "individual" from firing wildly into the air. Personally, I think his killer needs to be exiled to Amchitka Island up here for at least a year (Google the name to find out why I think it's a fitting punishment.)

Anonymous said...

I am in the Army stationed here in Alaska. Yes this rule is true. It is so sad. We only have to register weapons if they are coming on post and have never been allowed to carry concealed on post and I have never carried my weapon on his installtion. As for off post, I decided a long time ago to make the military my career, but in the words of Heston they can take my guns from my cold dead hands. I will have the ability to defend myself and my family!!!!!!!!!!!!! If that means losing a military pension because I had to save my kids life, well then be it. I hope he is never out into this position with his family.

Anonymous said...

My favorite is that I have contacted the NRA to ask for their help in getting the policy letter removed.

They keep declining to help. The latest response before I read this article is...

"We do not have influence on military policy. Once one signs his name on the military contract, he falls under the UCMJ. Our influence only exists in the civilian world. Cordially, Angus McClellan NRA-ILA Grassroots"

I guess that soldiers are not important enough to the NRA that they shoudl defend our state and national constitutional rights.

Call or write the NRA, especially if your a NRA member, to demand that they help us. Tell them how crazy this USARAK policy letter is.

Dustin said...

Thanks for the heads up - I will contact them.