Military and Off-Base Private Firearms

[Keb]

There was some flack a few months back when a woman officer went after control of off base weapons owned privately. I seem to recall it was in Kentucky. She was eventually countermanded.

Now, I suspect there will a wave of new control procedures.

 

[Al Diehl]

Privately owned weapons in the military

I served over 20 years in the Army and have been working an additional 10 years here at Ft Polk La. and I will tell you that the Military has no jurisdiction over privately owned firearms (POW's) owned by any military personnel as long as those firearms are off of the installation. However, if the sevice member wants to bring them on post they must be registered with the Provost Marshal and if the service member resides in the "Barracks" the firearms must be stored in the arms room. Overseas is a whole nuther ball game. You are subject to the "Status of Forces" agreement that the US has signed with that country. It can range from, No privately owned weapons at all to Provost Marshal registration, regardless of whether or not it is on or off of the installation.
It sounds to me like someone tried to overstep their bounds:banghead: and she, more than likely, got chopped off at the knees.
I had not heard of the situation you described but, it sounds like it took care of itself.
I hope that I contributed something. Be cool.
Al

 

[shibbykins]

Ft bliss is like Al described. Off post they have no jurisdiction PERIOD. They tried to force registration of off post weapons *several people i know were threatened with article 15's* but because of the negativeness this caused they stopped. Only if you reside on post or in post housing do you have to register. The fact Texas is a no register state helps abit.

Personal story. My commander upon my registration of a handgun was like " I dont know you and I dont know If I wanna sign this paperwork authorizing you to own a handgun" to which I replied, Sir, that would be a violation of 2nd amendment rights as the feds already authorized it and I already own it. This is just PMO registration so its more or less considered a "courtesty" to you in knowing I have guns. (1sgt was rolling at this too cuz he knew I was right) he signed it he just told me not to kill myself.

 

[danweasel]

When I was registering my guns with the PMO (I live off post but I sometimes hit up the class 6 after the range on the way home) I took the paper to my CO to get her to sign it and she said, "Nice collection" and then asked me how much I paid for my AK. Then she told me that she paid less than half for hers a few years back and told me I got ripped off. Hahaha.

 

[Rodeo4joe]

Everyone is right and wrong. We all know that the military could attempt to make us register our guns. Being from a no register state helps alot. But what is to stop them from requiring a new fangled "firearms safty course" of course this course would involve your writing of a list of your guns to be able to better instruct you mind you this would be different from our current Gun quals it would focus on storage and saftey. Not much different that the new sport bike saftey courses that are not required by our state here but if you even own one and have no intention of riding to work, you still have to take the course. I dont disagree with that personally but, we never really have our own choices. The US supreme court has not stated that firearm registration is unconstitutional, there for if our selected branch were to release a policy stating we had to register we would be required to comply. Of course this would cause alot of other drama. There would be lots of complaints and protesting against the policy. Should this ever hypothetically happen it would be my suggestion that everyone write their Most gun friendly congressman, the reason for this is that should he choose to assist in your cause. Military comands must respond to his inquiry within 5 bussiness days.

 

[miket]

Rodeo, requiring a gun safety course is a bit different than the motorcycle safety course. Yes, the military (Navy for me) required it. You had to do the MSF class to be allowed on base with a motorcycle (base sticker) and not get screwed over medically if you had a motorcycle accident.

As for the military requiring guns to be registered, I could totally see them trying it. Don't know if it would stick, but it would be painful for a while. Just like that commander up in Alaska (Army) that say NOBODY could carry off base, even while off duty. Don't know what happened in the end with that one, though.

We were told time and time again that we didn't have full "rights" as a military member. I'm surprised they haven't tried requiring off base private home inspections because the military pays for it via BOQ/BEQ.

 

[happygeek]

I think the big reason for all the motorcycle safety regs/classes/hassles/etc. is that the Army loses a good number of guys in motorcycle crashes. Before Afghanistan got hot, there was a good number of years when the Army lost more guys in motorcycle crashes then were KIA in Afghanistan; I saw the motorcycle safety posters stressing those numbers myself.

There is a good deal of focus on car safety too, though. You have to have a pass to go over 150 miles (150, right? or is it 200?) miles away from base, and with that pass you have to have all sorts of safety paperwork. There's safety classes and accident prevention classes that seem to come up every few months and are very much mandatory.

The Army does lose people to suicide, but [so far at least] the Army has been focused on the cause of those suicides, on training people to recognize the signs, and on treatment to help. They haven't been focusing on whatever method people may have used to commit suicide, unlike the Brady Bunch.

It doesn't seem that accidents involving POWs are common enough to garner the Army's attention in the way that motorcycle accidents have been. Were POW accidents to cause the Army to lose a significant number of guys, I'm sure we'd have the safety classes/regs/hassles that motorcycle riders do.

I'm sure that years back some dumb*ss had an AD in the barracks, hence the prohibition on firearms in said buildings. I'm also sure that the Army thinks the risks of allowing CC on post outweigh any possible benefits, hence the prohibition on said activity. Crime is significantly lower on the post that I'm familiar with than it is in the surrounding area, so. Personally, I carry almost 100% of the time off post; on post I carry mace and hope for the best.

 

[happygeek]

Quick add on; as to the gun safety courses the Army could potentially require. The Army teaches

1 put the safety on
2 remove the source of feed
3 lock the bolt to the rear
4 three point check (chamber, bolt face, where ever the firearm feeds from)

It occurs to me that the Army teaches these steps to clear because they're not specific to any one type of firearm, i.e. you can clear a M9, M16, M240 using the same steps. You could also clear you privately owned M1911 using those steps.

Of course, the Army also teaches keeping your finger off the trigger, not flagging anyone, pretty much Jeff Cooper's 4 rules without calling them that. Hence in a way, the Army does teach safety for you POW.

 

[miket]

I'm also sure that the Army thinks the risks of allowing CC on post outweigh any possible benefits, hence the prohibition on said activity.

Although somewhat "minor", one thing no one ever mentions is uniform regulations/standards when CC'ing in uniform IF (not likely) it were allowed on base. Just exactly how large and/or unsightly does an IWB "bulge" have to be before being out of uniform standards? Or sagging belt, or in the pocket, etc... People were talking about open carry on base in another forum and no one mentioned this there, either. Open carry? With ALL of the zillions of holsters, materials, types of handguns, etc? Plus, any currently approved uniform belt other than a duty belt would SUCK for an IWB/OWB holster setup.

And, they'd have to consider "carrying appearance" when out in town, too. I never once carried in uniform off base because it was all I could do to get home and get out of my khakis or summer whites. If in a flight suit, we couldn't really stop in between home and base anyway back when I was in (Navy).

I'd LOVE to see them try and the new uniform manual if they do!

 

[essayons21]

From personal experience, you can conceal a Mossberg 500A under ACUs. Hard to walk though. Concealing any pistol without a bulge is no problem.

 

[Rodeo4joe]

HappyGeek and Mike T.
Thanks for the replies. Like I said I completely agree with the motorcycle saftey course. I too am Navy and have been long enough to understand what you mean about them saying we dont have full rights as a military member. But I assure you that we do but here is where I equate the difference; if they have not been clearly defined and constiututional or unconstitutional they can make us do what they want. For instance in the instance with the commander in alaska that was a gray area that they were not ready to face. Likewise Firearm registration is not clearly defined as constitutional or not. I can definatly see some CO's definatly leaning towards firearm registration however I think that the military as a whole would push away from this under the intense pressure they would recieve. as an example My CO is a 1 star (and a memeber here on THR) and I was in the room when he made an extreamly pro gun statement in the not so distant past (well before yesterday though) the issue with something of this nature is that they would be pressured back from the higher ranking people along with the lower. it would affect people at all levels instead of just the lower and with that would creat a leadership role in the opposition of said policies. the main issue with where oppposition fails to affect change in the military is that the opposition is ussually the minority. but being the minority isnt as bad when your flipping rank at the same time. Mike T the navy boy will know what I mean when I say I dare them to try and tell the entire Chiefs mess that they have to register their guns. Pro gun or not every memeber in there will stand together just to help the few that are pro gun effect the change just on the principle that it is right. so i really dont see it coming but I do see them trying.

 

[happygeek]

Although somewhat "minor", one thing no one ever mentions is uniform regulations/standards when CC'ing in uniform IF (not likely) it were allowed on base. Just exactly how large and/or unsightly does an IWB "bulge" have to be before being out of uniform standards? Or sagging belt, or in the pocket, etc... People were talking about open carry on base in another forum and no one mentioned this there, either. Open carry? With ALL of the zillions of holsters, materials, types of handguns, etc? Plus, any currently approved uniform belt other than a duty belt would SUCK for an IWB/OWB holster setup.

And, they'd have to consider "carrying appearance" when out in town, too. I never once carried in uniform off base because it was all I could do to get home and get out of my khakis or summer whites. If in a flight suit, we couldn't really stop in between home and base anyway back when I was in (Navy).

I'd LOVE to see them try and the new uniform manual if they do!

I've done this numerous times (off post, not on). 670-1 also prohibits tight fitting ACUs, so really, if you're in compliance with 670-1 then you won't have trouble, even with a Beretta 92 (and I know how much everyone loves to complain about how large that pistol is).

People open carry in ACUs all the time while deployed, of course, so I'm sure this topic has come up before. Not where I've been deployed, lucky me. Where I was, no one cared if you used anything from brown leather holsters to Blackhawk Serpa holsters, to ... whatever.

 

[miket]

From personal experience, you can conceal a Mossberg 500A under ACUs. Hard to walk though. Concealing any pistol without a bulge is no problem.

And I could have concealed a whole lot in my flight suit, too. But, what about more form fitting uniforms like Dress Khakis and Summer Whites which are tucked in with flimsy uniform belts...or the Army uniform equivalent? Not everyone is/was in the Army...

 

[miket]

Mike T the navy boy will know what I mean when I say I dare them to try and tell the entire Chiefs mess that they have to register their guns.

Okay, but for me it would have been the wardroom or ready room. But, we felt the same way.

 

[essayons21]

And I could have concealed a ton of ***** in my flight suit, too. So, what about more form fitting uniforms like Dress Khakis and Summer Whites which are tucked in with flimsy uniform belts...or the Army uniform equivalent? Not everyone is/was in the Army...

But they all wear some variation of ACU's now as a duty uniform

If you are in dress uniform you may be SOL, hopefully this incident will cause the military to take a good hard look at its force protection posture stateside.

 

[Cosmoline]

These base commanders are in dire need of a Stalin style purging. They're utterly worthless. Gen. Jacoby forbade troops from having off-base firearms a few years ago--in Alaska! I have nothing but contempt for these CYA manipulations, and mark my words WE GOT OFF EASY with the last attack. It was just one nutty loon who went on a spree after going to 7-11. In Pakistan and Iraq the terrorists have been orchestrating timed assaults in full gear on military and police bases with enormous casualty rates. The Israelis learned a long time ago that anyone in a uniform is a target, but we're still stuck in the deeply ridiculous position of relying on a handful of MP's to protect millions of trained soldiers. We are asking for a genuine slaughter. Practically begging for it. Half a dozen terrorists in body armor with grenades and M16s could have killed hundreds.

 

[miket]

But they all wear some variation of ACU's now as a duty uniform

Nope, not everyone. I still keep in touch with buddies who are still in and they still wear Khakis for day-to-day ops if they're not flying (Summer Whites on Fridays) and flight suit/gear when they're on the schedule. A lot of that does have to do with base and, sometimes, squadron/Wing policy, though. No ACUs for those guys. The flight suit IS the "ACU".

 

[miket]

Gen. Jacoby forbade troops from having off-base firearms a few years ago--in Alaska!

Wow, he had the balls to try that, too? I thought he was just forbidding off-base carry...

 

[Tim the student]

I lived off post on Bragg, and didn't need to register mine, but I only went to and from my house to the range.

From FB reg 190-12: (www.bragg.army.mil/ProvostMarshal/FBRegs/FBReg190-12.doc)

5-2. Personnel not required to register firearms. Normally personnel living/staying off post are not required to register their privately owned firearms. This includes, for example, soldiers and their family members living off post, civilian employees living off post, retirees living off post, and unaffiliated personnel living off post (such as civilian personnel who periodically hunt on Fort Bragg). The only time such personnel are required to register their privately owned firearms is in the infrequent circumstance that they are storing their firearms at an authorized location on post for more than five days.

All of my commanders and senior NCO's were very pro-gun that I recall, but God help you if you did not follow any and all reg's.

 

[sfc_mark]

OP sounds like a case of someone overstepping her authority until she got reined in. It happens - SOME senior officers believe their command prerogative legitimately extends to every aspect of their subordinates' (subjects'?) lives.

A few years ago, the Chief of Staff at Third Army made a move to try to ban all motorcycle riding, on or off duty in the name of safety. He felt it was within his rights to do so. Luckily the CG was a rider himself, so that one lasted all of about zero minutes, otherwise it probably would have stood until someone at the Pentagon struck it down.

As far as "Big Army" is concerned, your private firearms in off-post housing are your own business (for now). In on-post family quarters you can store them at home, but if you're in the barracks, you're stuck with arms room storage at the mercy of the unit armorer (usually an E-4 with an attitude).

When I PCS'd to New Jersey in the mid 1990s, the government quarters were off post. We could have weapons, but nobody bothered to tell us when we came in that the state laws effectively made us criminals for the guns we already owned when we got there. I had been there two years already when I found out the state required a license before you could even touch a gun in the store.

 

[ms6852]

The more reason we need to be allowed to carry our firearms with us. Of the 12 or 13 dead and more than 30 wounded had at least a 3rd of them had their own firearms with them I am sure the casualties would have been far less. I am retired military and work at BAMC (Brooke Army Medical Center) and as a concealed license holder I hate entering a federal facility without my sidearm. But that is the law and that is what separates me from the criminal or the lunatic. I follow the law therefore I am not protected or I cannot fully protect those who could or will become victims.

 

[miket]

When I PCS'd to New Jersey in the mid 1990s, the government quarters were off post. We could have weapons, but nobody bothered to tell us when we came in that the state laws effectively made us criminals for the guns we already owned when we got there.

I know you're probably not going to like hearing this, but...right or wrong... Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Being in the military doesn't give a person any more "right" to break the law than someone else moving into a state behind enemy lines (NJ) like a civilian who had a job transfer. I knew as far back as the early 90s what was and wasn't legal regarding firearms when I had to PCS to a new state. And, I left things at home (or waited until legal to bring them in) as a result.

I had been there two years already when I found out the state required a license before you could even touch a gun in the store.

You are LUCKY you didn't get in trouble going to the range or doing anything you might have thought was "normal" with a firearm, especially a handgun. It's very similar in CT, where I live now, with handguns.

 

[sfc_mark]

I know you're probably not going to like hearing this, but...right or wrong... Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I fully accept that fact. Of course, not doing anything stupid with my firearms, or otherwise attracting attention from law enforcement, in the first place was why it took so long to find out.

In the pre-internet period, with no information resources (and no contact for the gaining command), and coming from Germany, my ability to find out beforehand was extremely crippled. Besides, my primary focus at the time was learning how to legally import my German-born daughter. It's my own fault I didn't find out subsequently.

 

[Titan6]

Well it has started

Today coming back on post:

rent a cop: "What is in that case?"
Titan6: "Guns, it is a gun case"
RAC: "They registered"
T6: "Yep"
RAC: "can you pull them out so I can see them"
T6: "Yep"
RAC: "Hmmm, seems these two are registered and these are not..."
T6: "Don't know, thought they were all registered"
RAC: "Well, you can take these on post, but not these. Last week we would have given you 72 hours to register them but not anymore."
T6: "umm, I can take these guns on post but not those? Does that make any sense to you at all?
RAC: "Its regulation"
T6: "Yeah, umm ok..."

So I took the guns to buddy off post. Except for the ones that were registered, these I took on since I live there.

Of course if I were intent on doing harm, I would have hid the guns and the guards would never have seen them. Totally worthless rules, stopping no criminal from doing anything.

 

[luigi]

Al Dieh said lI will tell you that the Military has no jurisdiction over privately owned firearms (POW's) owned by any military personnel as long as those firearms are off of the installation.

This is incorrect. As others have pointed, out the Commanding General of the Alaska Command has forbade all troops without regard to their status as concealed weapons permit holders to carry firearms off post (on post is, of course, a given). I have been on posts where the CG has forbade enlisted from having weapons in their off post quarters (the barracks, again, a given) in one case issue was made regarding a PV2 who lived in his parent's home off post where the family's guns were stored. I've been on posts where all enlisted soldiers, without distinction of rank, were required to store their personal weapons in the unit arms room. I have also been on posts where all junior EM were forbidden from owning personal firearms period.

A commanding General on his post is about as close as you will ever come to God on earth. As long as he doesn’t flagrantly violate DOD, TRADOC, or FORSCOM policy he can do just about whatever he pleases.