Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SAS Letter to U.S. Army Garrison, Alaska ^ | November 7, 2009 | Angela Briggs, Second Amendment Sisters

Posted on 11/08/2009 12:12:08 PM PST by basil

Alaska Chapter Coordinator

Second Amendment Sisters, Inc

900 R.R. 620 A., Suite C-101, Box 228

Lakeway, Texas 787347 November 2009


U.S. Army Garrison Alaska

724 Postal Service Loop # 6000

Fort Richardson Alaska 99505-6000

Dear Colonel Timothy Prior,

My name is Angela Briggs and I am the Alaska State Coordinator for the Second Amendment Sisters, a women’s advocacy group dedicated to preserving the basic human right to self defense as recognized by the Second Amendment.

I am writing to you to inform you of a recent incident and matter of post policy that is of a most serious nature. Only days ago, an Alaska member of our organization, went to the military installation under your command for a job interview. She was turned around at the gate because she had a firearm in her possession.

In order to proceed to her appointment she was required by your policy to become unarmed, relinquish her rights as an American and as an Alaskan to keep and bear arms, and give up her best means of protection as a woman.

Please note that this incident occurred just days prior to the tragic event on Ft Hood, Texas where a murderous rampage was halted by the heroic efforts of Sergeant Kimberly Munley after being wounded herself.

I would like to please draw your attention, Col. Prior, to the following articles;

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Second Amendment of the United States Constitution

“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.” Article 1, Section 19 of the Alaska Constitution

I am sure you are well aware; the oath to support and defend the Constitution is taken by the President, members of Congress, and all military members both commissioned and enlisted. Therefore, the right to bear arms is not subject to opinion.

Your superiors cannot properly ask you to infringe upon this right just as you cannot legitimately take away the right of Americans under your command.

The brave men and women serving our country in the armed forces cannot be asked to give up their rights by serving nor can civilians doing business on your post.

Gun free zones equal killing zones and military posts are no exception with policies that disarm both off duty soldiers and civilians. The November 6th incident at ft Hood is a clear example.

I ask that you follow your oath of office by removing the policy on Ft. Richardson that unlawfully and unconstitutionally disarms us. I ask that you support the Constitution of United States, the Constitution of Alaska, and defend freedom, all of which makes for a stronger, more secure Ft. Richardson in particular and America in general.

I am posting this as an open letter on the Alaska Chapter Second Amendment Sister’s webpage at Second Amendment Sisters.

I am also sending it to members of the media in hopes that all who read it will join me in urging you to do what is right. Your attention to this very serious matter will be greatly appreciated.


Angela Briggs

Alaska State Coordinator Second Amendment Sisters, Inc

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: 2amendmentsisters; 2asisters; banglist; freedom; sas; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last
This was written and sent to the Commander of the US Army Garrison in Fort Richardson by our SAS AK state coordinator.

Second Amendment Sisters are working to eliminate ALL "gun free zones" (aka killing fields) in this country.

Mari Thompson (basil) co-founder and President Second Amendment Sisters, Inc

1 posted on 11/08/2009 12:12:09 PM PST by basil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: basil

I agree. It is puzzling that they should swear to uphold the constitution, but then be required by superiors to oppose it.

It is also illogical for us to entrust them with the most powerful weaponry, and then deny them constant access to such basic things as pistols.

We need to see more of this.

2 posted on 11/08/2009 12:38:56 PM PST by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: basil

Excellent and thank you for posting this!

3 posted on 11/08/2009 12:44:14 PM PST by amom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: basil

Shame the SAS don’t read Federal Law. No private weapons on Post.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

Bad news, the Post Commanders hands are just about tied in the matter. Folks living in quarters may be allowed possession - that’s open for discussion.

Civilians on Post with private weapons? Not going to happen, unless they lie to the guards. That carries it’s own downside.

4 posted on 11/08/2009 12:53:16 PM PST by ASOC (Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: basil

Man thats confusing. Why would a pressure group name itself after one of the most famous special forces regiments in the world?

5 posted on 11/08/2009 12:56:21 PM PST by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

We’ve been known as SAS around these parts for a very long time. We were born on FR, so people are sort of used to us. We’re SASTERS!

6 posted on 11/08/2009 12:59:06 PM PST by basil (It's time to rid the country of "Gun Free Zones" aka "Killing Fields")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: basil

The NRA and GOP need to push hard for CCW for AMERICAN troops on bases. They need protection from Islamic sleeper cells.

7 posted on 11/08/2009 1:00:59 PM PST by Frantzie (Judge David Carter - democrat & dishonorable Marine like John Murtha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Off topic-were you at the retiree appreciation day at Ft Rich yesterday?

8 posted on 11/08/2009 2:05:13 PM PST by GATOR NAVY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

Other reports about Hasan’s own regiment not reporting his “anti American” actions and comments, they were afraid they would be persecuted as discriminatory. Another anti-rights movement brainwashing that we all need to get over. I live in Sheriff Joe Territory, profiling is not a bad thing, you think about it, do you trust everybody you see on the street? NO, better be the answer. If agree, everybody on the street is not to be trusted, then you are profiling. You need to question what you think may destroy you or your country, Hasan was obviously one of those things. Why isn’t our country allowing us to do that?

9 posted on 11/08/2009 5:31:02 PM PST by myboyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: basil

Did anybody consider that Hasan had (by reports) at his disposal, probably 500 or so rounds to do his damage? Kimberly Munley’s 4 rounds are, by reports, “PROBABLY” the reason why he didn’t kill as many as he could. Kimberly Munley’s 4 rounds ARE THE ONLY REASON why more people were not killed. And I might add, no Federal Law or military installation rule prevented him from doing the damage he did, ONLY KIMBERLY MUNLEY did that.

Angela, Basil, yours, in SASter-hood

10 posted on 11/08/2009 5:37:56 PM PST by myboyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Here is the thing (you idiot) oops, I slipped. Civilians carrying on a military base may not be in our foreseeable future. I haven’t been on a base in a long time, but as a kid, I used to go quite a bit, felt safe. Will it every be again, don’t think so. And if I were in the military, living on base, would I want to be able to protect myself? ABSOLUTELY. The anti-gunners have brainwashed us into believing that NO ONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES. That is the issue here. This needs to changed. Even reports that the FBI has been trying to get permission to deploy teams on bases to protect our military. Maybe that will happen now. The bottom line is, anti gunners make us DEFENSELESS VICTIMS. That is what gun free zones are all about, that is what SAS fights against. SAS stands for SECOND AMENDMENT SISTERS and we are not a “pressure” group, we are women’s rights advocates, and thank God for women like Kimberly.

11 posted on 11/08/2009 5:56:47 PM PST by myboyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


NAh, it’s a good deal for some, but offered up little to us - we did get an invite.

I took the grandkids to the “airplanes on a stick” park and to look at the Eagles. We hit the park behind the BK and then got some chow. Much more fun : )

I’mm thinking taking Vets day and making a sign & standing by the gate - bammy’s supposed to be in to get gas on his way to to meet the new owners in China — I can only hope he leaves everyone alone here.

12 posted on 11/08/2009 6:10:42 PM PST by ASOC (Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Hey, ASOC, are you going to get down to brass tacks or not, are you going to come out and admit that the Federal Government has no business denying our right to self-defense, or what? The 2A states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, military bases are federal installations, as my SASter, Angela states, it is our right, we may not see it in our life time, but you are very much disillusioned by the anti-gunners, and denying the fact that we have rights, natural rights, protected by the Constitution (only given to us by God) to protect life, liberty, and property. Oops, I slipped again, you idiot.

13 posted on 11/08/2009 6:26:04 PM PST by myboyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: myboyz
As always, you cut straight to the quick, myboyz! We're glad to have you working for us in AZ!

14 posted on 11/08/2009 6:59:29 PM PST by basil (It's time to rid the country of "Gun Free Zones" aka "Killing Fields")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


ADN says he’s coming Thursday now. If you go you may not be alone. I’ve heard some rumblings from others about manning up outside the gate.

15 posted on 11/08/2009 7:59:22 PM PST by GATOR NAVY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: basil

Hmmm ... both sides make sense here ...

Civilians carrying firearms on a military base? I’m not so sure about that. What if 5,000 civilians all came walking up to the guard shack, AR-15s over their shoulders, seeking admittance? Then again, there shouldn’t be many civilian visitors and it might become policy to escort them. Dicey stuff.

Troops don’t ordinarily walk around the base (post, for you grunts) carrying sidearms, except for police. That policy should be changed, since we are at war, but we’ll see.

In my own experience ... at Hill Air Force Base in Utah, where civilians vastly outnumber military personnel, the morning rush is a stream of vehicles three lanes across, non-stop for a half hour.

One day the base police were hosting some kind of police brass, and one of the brass hats happened to visit the guard shack during the morning rush. He was APPALLED to see that nearly every pickup truck entering the base had a deer rifle in the back window. Not that there had ever been a problem, but he freaked out at the thought of all those rifles in civilian hands!

A new policy was instituted that afternoon.

16 posted on 11/08/2009 8:43:24 PM PST by DNME (We are now under a state of national emergency (for H1N1) so Katie bar the door!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Shame? For what? Opposing an illegal law? Since when should anyone adhere to a law that clearly violates the Constitution?

It is a basic, natural, God given right to protect oneself, the Constitution only affirms it. It is something the government doesn't grant us and should never be allowed to take away.

Far to long we have all been complacent and allowed our so called reps and gun rights groups to compromise our rights away. That is why I joined SAS (Second Amendment Sisters, Inc), they are a no comprise group as they all should be.

I have no shame in making it known that those rules applied to bases are unconstitutional and deny those who lay their lives on the line their basic human rights.

The Alaska statistics for rape are twice the national average. No Alaskan woman should go anywhere without being armed, ever!

17 posted on 11/08/2009 9:56:49 PM PST by ABriggs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ABriggs

No comment.

18 posted on 11/08/2009 11:51:13 PM PST by ASOC (Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: myboyz
Use your 'right' as much as you want, but I doubt the Federal magistrate who arraigns you, after your arrest, will give a crap about your feelings.

You need to learn to pick your battles - pissing off the local Post Commander is a bad bet.

Trying to get some new, Constitutionally minded Senators elected, that's a good bet. The Brass Tacks that seem so dear to you is the Law - don't like it, work to change it.

Break it at your own risk.

I'd like to think this forum can enjoy a decent discussion - calling folks names is something most of us gave up in 2nd or at the latest, 3rd grade. Grow up and quit acting the spoilt brat. ASOC, Out.

19 posted on 11/09/2009 12:00:21 AM PST by ASOC (Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

You are saying that at Hill AFB in Utah that for years folks openly had their rifles/shotguns on display in their trucks as they came on base? How many massacres did you have at Hill? Did the number of dead equal what happened at Ft. Hood?

These same people might have been carrying handguns, too if there were no anti-gun policy on the base. If so, again the base remained peaceful.

It seems that many of our citizens have a bit of a problem grasping the concept that the criminals should be arrested and prosecuted, and the good guys should be left alone.

If a person has a black heart, as the muzzie at FT Hood did, he will find a way to carry out his nefarious deeds.

The "Gun Free Status" of FT Hood didn't stop him. What it did was pile up the bodies, because no one could stop him, until finally, an armed woman showed up and was able to neutralize him.

Most of the time, it takes a gun to stop a gun. Guns in the hands of the law abiding are a good thing, and the law abiding citizens still outnumber the criminals in this country. It's only the law-abiding citizen that observes a "No Gun Zone" sign.

20 posted on 11/09/2009 5:35:58 AM PST by basil (It's time to rid the country of "Gun Free Zones" aka "Killing Fields")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson