Army base starting to register OFF POST firearms!

[qwert65]

.455, is correct, I used to frequent a pawnshop by ft riley and they had storage lockers for guys who wanted to store weapons off post

 

[gym]

The post said I believe, that they "asked soldiers", let me check, yep they asked, so I guess you can say "no", if they are asking, or say nothing.Not that I would be sure of that, but that is what it appears to be.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Or whether they use condoms when they have sex.

When I was in, they gave us "safety briefings" every Friday at COB formation and one of the topics covered was ALWAYS "If you have sex this weekend make sure that you use a condom"

During one of the early 90's Team Spirit evolutions in Korea we could not leave base unless we had an ID card and a condom. That order included everyone, even the married and senior staff. We were an infantry unit, but it would have been sort of humorous to watch them apply it to the females.

I was threatened for having developed a friendship with a Navy aviator in Cuba. He was a senior officer, and I a young E-3.

Certains bars, and even certain city blocks in and around Jacksonville NC, were declared off-limits to unit personnel. Anyone found there, or discovered having been there, was subject to punishment.

When I deployed to Okinawa, our unit was given the "option" to recieve the injection of a drug not approved by the FDA to prevent Japanese Encephalitis. The choice was either to accept the injection, or not be treated by the Navy if we contracted it. It was in writing, and we had to specifically waive our rights if the medication made us ill or had damaging side-effects.

The military used to enforce policies on marriage. That practice has been abandoned, but it was common for units to require their young enlisted men to obtain permission from his CO to get married.


The military has quite a bit of latitude when it comes to micro-managing the lives of its servicemen. It always has, and it always will. If my unit could dictate where I went on liberty, my friendships with other servicemen, my sexual and marital relations, and even strongarm me into taking unapproved medication, why does it shock anyone that they might institute intrusive policies regarding what guns I own?


I've seen quite a bit of heavy-handed behavior in the military. This doesn't surprise me. Personally I'd just find a way to make sure they were out of their reach. And when asked to disclose such information simply reply, "My mother never let me play with such things."

 

[Clipper]

The post said I believe, that they "asked soldiers",

Yup, it seems that you and I are the only ones with any reading comprehension skills so far...

 

[leadcounsel]

The way I see it, I don't think that it's a lawful order - because the Army has no jurisdiciton over my personal property kept off base. I am not required to follow unlawful orders.

Yes I could be punished for failing to follow the order, if/when the lawfulness of it is hashed out.

Yes, the Army CAN move me back to the barracks - but the practicality of that is not good b/c we don't have the space and that would have be be a restriciton subject to review after a short time. It's especially difficult to put an officer restricted to the barracks for what would be failure to follow a lawful order - where the lawfulness of the order is in question.

 

[Javelin]

they won't, because they would have to admit/set precedence of soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen having individual liberties while on active duty. by default causing policies like this to be declared "Unlawful Orders" and that would be wrong, because Officers can't be wrong................Right??

Anyone can be wrong. I have not seen the Memorandum for Record so I will not speculate. But a Commander can do many things. When you are serving in the military you give up rights that would be otherwise accepted by its citizens such as (just off the top of my head)

1. Right to Free Speech (technically even including personal political views)
2. 5th Amendment rights (unless charges are held in civil court only)
3. Right to a jury (unless charges are held in civil court only)
4. Many working statues do not apply to service men and women
5. Cival Federal Protection laws also do not always apply to Service members

And there are many more as some commanders prohibit their Soldiers from riding their motorcycles ever.. Being military is a hardship for our servicemen and women. I do not agree with this particular rule but whatever it is the military and if a post commander published the orders you can bet that JAG has already looked at it (the Post Commander has dozens of them working for him around the clock right?)....

 

[Rockwell1]

The way I see it, I don't think that it's a lawful order - because the Army has no jurisdiciton over my personal property kept off base. I am not required to follow unlawful orders.

You'd better go back and read your Soldiers Manual of Common Tasks

You are required to

1. State that you believe the order to be unlawful and why.

2. State that you intend to report the individual who gave the order

3. Report the individual at your earliest opportunity

4. Ultimately follow the order and then report it.

Again, since this is the post commander's call I invite you to take it up with the Lt. General in charge of Ft. Cambell.

The post commander absolutely CAN dictate your behavior off post on your time. If that's not the case how can SMs in Alaska be forbidden for carrying concealed weapons off post, off duty regardless of their status as permit holdets? How can jr. EM be forbidden from owning weapons in their homes at Ft. Carson? As I mentioned earlier my COC was very seriously not considering letting my buddy live in his parent's home, the home HE GREW UP IN mind you, because there were guns in the home and they weren't sure how that fit with Lt. Gen Guy J. Laboa's moratorium on lower EMs owning firearms.

You can argue jurdiction all day long the fact is they did it.

 

[alsaqr]

Any person who wishes to bring a gun onto an Army post for hunting or shooting has to register that gun with the vehicle/firearms registration office.

 

[Rockwell1]

5th Amendment rights (unless charges are held in civil court only

Not true, a soldier can not be compelled to testify against himself and his exercise of that right cannot be held against him.

 

[HarleyFixer]

When you are a member of the Military the Constitution of the US DOES NOT APPLY to you. You are governed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice which does not have the same rights and/or privileges.While it is true that the Military has no control of your property off the military reservation, they do have 100% control of you. This is a lawful order under the UCMJ and you can be prosecuted for failure to follow it. Trust me after 35 years as a Military Officer I know what they can do.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Yes, the Army CAN move me back to the barracks - but the practicality of that is not good b/c we don't have the space and that would have be be a restriciton subject to review after a short time. It's especially difficult to put an officer restricted to the barracks for what would be failure to follow a lawful order - where the lawfulness of the order is in question.

The Platoon Sergeant of our mortar platoon once ordered all his men restricted to base as a punishment. That included married men. When it was pointed out that there wasn't enough room to house everyone, he solved it by ordering the entire platoon to erect their shelter halves in front of the barracks. Every evening they put up their tents, and every morning they struck them down. No one was permitted to sleep indoors.

That went on for nearly three weeks. And yes, he was a complete jerk. And yes, it lost him some loyalty and credibility with his men. But in the end he showed he had both the power and the will to do it, and he made it clear who was in charge.


I wouldn't be so confident to assume the Army wouldn't do something because it would be a logistical hardship. Your command might not be able to control your privately owned property, but they do control you. And while everyone involved will know the silly games that come about after refusing to "get with the program" are vindictive, command can come up with any number of plausible reasons to explain why they're exercising certain discretions, and it would pass scrutiny.

The military doesn't have to play fair. In fact the system is not fair, by design and intent. That hangup - the concept of "fairness" - is consistently what causes most of the problems young servicemen have with culture shock and adjusting to the military system.

 

[daorhgih]

UCMJ

If memory serves me correctly, it is even a "crime" as delineated by UCMJ for a husband and wife to engage in any sex except the "missionary" kind, even in their own quarters. The USMIL can do whatever they damned well please in most cases. Such as this off-base gun-registration. Of course, we know, that registration is the last step before confiscation. (In the above sex item, she became his ex-, and was subsequently questioned under oath in another situation in which the "oral" thing came up. He got an Article 15 over it, but only a letter, not anything else.) ( Question concerning Military Jerks and "playing fair" : is "FRAGGING" considered "FAIR"? Ref: Eye Core 1967 )

 

[Leaky Waders]

"When you are a member of the Military the Constitution of the US DOES NOT APPLY to you."

I disagree. Please review this article on Officer Oath's. (I just googled it, there's probbaly more out there.) I'm not saying that commissioned officer's interpret the consitution like the average folks, but just because you're in the military you have not waived your constitutional rights.

Of course there are certain grey areas...but I seriously doubt that any officer would enhance their career by maliciously trampling constitutional rights.

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/win02/keskel.html

Also, there was someone who posted that the Navy would not treat them if they had contracted a disease that they were not immunized for...this is simply false. Your military healthcare people treat active duty, retired, dependents, foreign military, foreign combatants, and others...all without regard to why they are hurt, sick, injured etc.

 

[the foot]

If somebody out there thinks the Constitution does not apply to mililtary members, you are dead wrong. My oath as an officer is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, and to well and faithfully accomplish my duties. Period.

A soldier has the constitutional right to keep and bear arms like every other citizen. However, his or her commander is not in violation of the Constitution if the soldier is required to register firearms with the military.

 

[Rockwell1]

When you are a member of the Military the Constitution of the US DOES NOT APPLY to you.

FALSE, I have personally had an MP "read me my rights" while on active duty.

You don't have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure if you live on post because the quarters don't belong to you, that wall locker belongs to the Army and if they want to look in it they can.

They CAN NOT search your private quarters off post or your vehicle but, every military installation I've ever been on has a sign at the front gate stating that agreeing to a search of your vehicle or person is a condition of entry onto the post.

. Trust me after 35 years as a Military Officer I know what they can do.

Curious as to your retired pay grade and when you retired. Could you give us some more information please?

A soldier has the constitutional right to keep and bear arms like every other citizen.

I wasn't an officer and I agree in prinipal, but given the above how is it that soldiers stationed in Alaska are not allowed CCW now and soldiers on Ft Carson (E-4 and below) were not allowed to own private weapons at all ?

 

[leadcounsel]

Nah, you still have rights under the Constitution, just modified rights. Instead of Miranda (which is interpreted in the Constitution) you have article 31 rights - which are similar.

You still exercise your 1st Amendment rights - except you cannot disparage superiors in public nor can you divulge classified information, etc.

And you cannot be abridged from owning firearms, but they can limit where. I believe that asking for ID of the firearms is a violation because there is no reason other than for confiscation. Knowing how many and of what caliber and serial is of zero use for "health, safety, etc." if it isn't a step in preparation toward confiscation. No need to know = unlawful order.

 

[franconialocal]

Ok....since we keep adding.....

1. I'm not allowed to take another job that is in direct conflict with police work (e.g. bartender, doorman, another security job, handle money, and on and on and on.)

2. My freedom of speech is essentially GONE (we could argue this all day) because no matter if on/off duty I'm still "representing my PD". No....this isn't "set in stone" as it were as a rule or SOP, but anyone out there that spends any time in LE esp. in a REALLY small town like mine basically knows this is true.

3. The only time I can deny/ignore a direct order is if that order, by it's nature, is against the law in and of itself.

4. My backup weapon (optional) MUST be .380 or greater caliber (makes sense to me).

And on, and on, and on........ but we're the jerks because we limit peoples freedoms by the nature of our jobs.......go figure........:banghead:

 

[Rockwell1]

Lead Counsel

And you cannot be abridged from owning firearms

I would like you to directly address this please, you keep saying "They can't" and I'm here directly contradicting you saying "They did".

I'm quite sure I'm not lying about my experience can you tell me how the Commander of the 4th ID got away with issuing such an order if it was ,in fact, illegal?

 

[alexanderom]

Duke of Doubt,

Your info on private owned weapons in USARAK is not exactly correct. I'm currently at Ft. Rich, and the CG's asinine policy is that USARAK soldiers cannot carry concealed weapons, even though the state of Alaska allows it. Air Force personnel can, however. How's that for good sense and justice?


AR.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Also, there was someone who posted that the Navy would not treat them if they had contracted a disease that they were not immunized for...this is simply false. Your military healthcare people treat active duty, retired, dependents, foreign military, foreign combatants, and others...all without regard to why they are hurt, sick, injured etc.

That would be me who said that.

I said it to make a point. I have little doubt that the Navy would treat me for a disease, as best they could anyway. And as long as it was appropriate. After the passage of time at some point the terminally ill and those who are unfit for service eventually get med-boarded out and become the responsibility of the VA.

My point is not whether the Navy would actually treat one of us had we contracted Japanese Encephalitis after having declined the vaccine. My point was the strongarm tactics used to coerce us into taking it.


Imagine a scenario where a health insurance company tells a patient, or a patient's parents, that unless he got a vaccine not yet approved by the FDA that his treatment would not be covered in the event he contracted the disease. That sort of tactic violates all sorts of medical ethics and even the law.

But that's exactly what occurred in our unit during pre-deployment workup. We were brought into a classroom, Battalion medical personnel told us about the disease - how it was communicated, contracted, it's progression and high death rates. And after we were sufficiently scared we were given two options. We had to make the decision that afternoon, with no time to even do our own research. One was to voluntarily accept this un-approved vaccine. The other was to decline it, and if we got sick, we were told we'd be on our own for treatment. And we were given forms that we had to sign which went in our medical records detailing those conditions.

Fortunately the Navy never had their bluff called in my unit. Most agreed to be vaccinated. Those that didn't - none contracted the disease.

The point isn't whether the Navy and Marines would actually deny us treatment. The point was that everything the medical community holds as the ethical practice of medicine - informed consent, uncoerced medical experimentation, medical privacy - all those practices were swiftly brushed aside by medical professionals because command said so.


leadcounsel,

Maybe in the courtroom, or in actual criminal proceedings those things you study and practice daily hold weight, and no one wants to be found violating them. In your world people respect them. But I'm telling you in a line unit, they mean very, very little. There are only 3 things that I ever saw respected as sacrosanct by my command. The Red Cross; our Chaplain and our men's right to exercise their religion; and anytime a Congress took an interest in us or one of his constituents in our unit.

Other than that things like individual Constitutional rights meant nothing to command. As far as they were concerned, we had none. We could be held against our will, for any reason. Our personal belongings, including our personal vehicles, were constantly searched in "Health and Comfort" inspections.


Were I faced with the request to disclose my personal firearms inventory, I'd simply make sure that none of them were within their reach, and respond that I owned none. I guess I could make a complaint to my Congressman, and hope he took up my case. But knowing the heat something like that would bring down upon me would make that decision a tough one to make. The more practical and pragmatic action is to simply not put myself in a position to have to fight my command.

 

[jbkebert]

Odd thing happened once

I was sent down to Ft. Sam Houston in San Antiono TX a few years back. I was to be there for three weeks for some transition training. My orders authorized me to drive my POV to the base and back and would be reimbursed to my expensies. I took my time drivng down and driving back whihc meant a couple of nights in hotels. Upon reporting to base I went to the MP station to check in my colt 1911. The MP's looked at me like I was stupid. I gave them a copy of my orders and at any base I had been at before you could not have a firearm in barracks. Anyway three MP's said this is Texas. Just keep it in your truck. I left the MP station for the prior service barracks and just kept it in my truck. Anyway I had to shake my head at their response.

 

[Rockwell1]

jbkebert

Ft. Sam Houston is a USAMEDDAC / AMEDD post they do things a liitle different than the rest of the Army.

However, you can just about bet the Yellow Rose of Texas that had that pistol been found in your truck ( assuming you're not a senior NCO or Officer) during a health & welfare those MPs would have denied ever having seen you an thrown you right under the bus

 

[jbkebert]

I think you are certainly right about that. I was not a senior NCO I was a E-5at the time. When I left combat arms active duty and went to the reserves I had to change my MOS. I became a 91-C and had to go down there to finish up my course. was able to take most of it through local college courses and the rest at McConnel AFB in Wichita,KS. Alot of things blew my mind going from being a 13-F to the AMED side of the house. Maybe that is why fort sham is refered to club med.

 

[Rockwell1]

jbkebert

Well, if nothing else you can take solace in the fact that LPNs tend to have better civilian job prospects than forward observers

 

[HarleyFixer]

Rockwell: I Retired in 2006 as a Chief Warrant Officer 4 assigned to the Criminal Investigative Division (CID) as an Investigator. It was my JOB to know the difference between civil and Military Law. Many of the rights in the Constitution are mirrored in the UCMJ but many are not and those rights DO NOT EXIST to a service member.