SIG Sauer 556 Arms Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
682 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Friday, May 28, 2010

Over a period of some months, NRA members in the Armed Forces have called NRA's attention to the fact that certain military base commanders, exercising arbitrary authority given them under military law and regulations, have issued orders violating military personnel's Second Amendment rights. In a particularly egregious example, Fort Riley, Kansas, has imposed a preposterous regulation that, among other things, (1) requires the registration, with Fort Riley, of its soldiers' privately-owned firearms kept off-base, and those of the soldiers' family members residing anywhere in Kansas, (2) prohibits soldiers who have firearm-carrying permits from carrying firearms for protection off-base, and (3) authorizes unit commanders to set arbitrary limits on the caliber of firearms and ammunition their troops may privately own.

Concurrently, following the multiple shooting on Fort Hood last year, allegedly committed with one or more firearms brought onto the base in violation of base regulations, the Department of Defense (DOD) began working on a regulation that, among other things, would require military commanders to require troops to register privately owned firearms kept off-base, and authorize such commanders to require troops living off-base to keep privately-owned firearms and ammunition locked in separate containers, the latter a restriction of the same type as, but more restrictive than, a law struck down by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). The D.C. law, the Court concluded, "makes it impossible for citizens to use [firearms] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

To nullify existing military orders and regulations that violate certain Second Amendment rights of military and civilian DOD personnel, and to preempt other orders and regulations of the sort, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. Sen. Inhofe's amendment, adopted on May 27 by the Senate Armed Services Committee:

States that "[T]he Secretary of Defense shall not prohibit, issue any requirement relating to, or collect or record any information relating to the otherwise lawful acquisition, possession, ownership, carrying, or other use of a privately owned firearm, privately-owned ammunition, or another privately-owned weapon by a member of the Armed Forces or civilian employee of the Department of Defense on property that is not owned or operated by the Department of Defense."
Nullifies military orders and regulations of the types the amendment prohibits
Requires DOD to destroy all gun ownership records of the types the amendment prohibits
Preserves DOD's authority to "regulate the possession, carrying, or other use of a firearm, ammunition, or other weapon" by personnel on-duty or in military uniform
Preserves DOD's authority to "create and maintain records relating to an investigation, prosecution, or adjudication of an alleged violation of law (including regulations) not prohibited by the amendment, including matters related to whether a member of the Armed Forces constitutes a threat to himself or others."

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5859
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
That's stinks to high heaven. I understand the base commander or the soldier's chain of command restricting firearm possession while on base and on duty. I don't think that commanders should be allowed to interfere or restrict a soldier's right to bear arms when that solder lives off post. There are other circumstances where that may be justifiable, but a blanket restriction is a violation of that soldier's second amendment rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
518 Posts
ptco911 said:
Over a period of some months, NRA members in the Armed Forces have called NRA's attention to the fact that certain military base commanders, exercising arbitrary authority given them under military law and regulations...
I agree it may be arbitrary but the post commander is still within his full legal authority. He can set whatever limits he wants on soldiers so long as they do not violate rights under UCMJ. Nobody complains about their 1st Amendment rights being trampled (the part about peaceably assembling) when the post commanders "off-limits establishments" roster is published.

ptco911 said:
...have issued orders violating military personnel's Second Amendment rights.
As the saying goes, "We're here to defend democracy, not practice it." Your rights are severely abridged upon active enlistment/commissioning. You only have the rights the UCMJ spells out and those that your chain-of-command allow. Most of your basic rights from the Bill of Rights is echoed in the UCMJ; right to remain silent, see a lawyer, trial by peers, freedom of religion (so long as it does not interfere with the mission), right to vote, etc. Some are not, like freedom of speech, 2nd Amendment rights, 4th Amendment, 8th...those are not there. No rights have been violated since you sign them away when you raise your right hand.

ptco911 said:
In a particularly egregious example, Fort Riley, Kansas, has imposed a preposterous regulation that, among other things, (1) requires the registration, with Fort Riley, of its soldiers' privately-owned firearms kept off-base, and those of the soldiers' family members residing anywhere in Kansas, (2) prohibits soldiers who have firearm-carrying permits from carrying firearms for protection off-base, and (3) authorizes unit commanders to set arbitrary limits on the caliber of firearms and ammunition their troops may privately own.
Again, this guy is an ass-clown who does not get the irony of being sworn to defend freedom and like a tyrant takes it away. But, he has that power by virtue of the UCMJ and as those who have served in the military know...his superior officers will not countermand his orders lest they break the pretense of infallibility that is endemic in the officer corps.

ptco911 said:
...a regulation that, among other things, would require military commanders to require troops to register privately owned firearms kept off-base, and authorize such commanders to require troops living off-base to keep privately-owned firearms and ammunition locked in separate containers, the latter a restriction of the same type as, but more restrictive than, a law struck down by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). The D.C. law, the Court concluded, "makes it impossible for citizens to use [firearms] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
The last part seems extreme but again, military personnel do not have the same rights as Jodie. So long as the commander does not violate the UCMJ, the reg will stick. No article of the UCMJ affirms the right to own firearms. I have been stationed in many gun-unfriendly states where private owners of guns had to register them with the local police to comply with state law. It was a standard practice for new soldier inprocessing to make sure this was done and to require a copy of the state forms to be kept in the soldiers file as well as with the garrison MP company. Some of my units actually made the company CO put the weapons of single soldiers living in the barracks on his property books since they stayed in the unit arms room. Married soldiers had to register them with the CO and the MPs if they lived on base; off-base, they still had to register them with local police and then notify the chain-of-command it was done and provide the aforementioned copies.

The military is just like the rest of society, those in charge always over-react when a crisis happens and do stupid things in the heat of the moment supposedly "for the good of all." This is what happens when republics die and are replaced by democracy.

I must say though that I am surprised that the POTUS and Congress are bucking that trend and have actually expanded gun rights since the inauguration even with all the mass shootings since January 2009. In case anyone is in shock at this statement I make, the only bills dealing with guns that Obama has signed into law are ones that give people the right to carry guns into national parks and CCL-holders may carry aboard Amtrak trains.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
Succinct and well-said, Maud'dib.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
682 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I fully understand the differences of the military and civilian aspects of rights. I spent 24 years in the Army and can see the that portions of the regulations emplaced by the commander are in direct conflict of the any person's right to defend their families OFF POST. He is fully in his authority on the installation which is federal property.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
365 Posts
I wonder what the result would be, if I had a relative (say brother for example) in the military at this commander's base, and I was told that I was going to have all my arms registered under this edict, and my response was:
:p "They're MY guns and no way in h*ll am I going to turn over any model numbers or serial numbers!!!" :p

What is the military going to do? Court martial my brother for what I do? Invade my house with the 82nd airborne?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
It's not as if the Post Commander is going to send out the MPs to search every off-post residence for unregistered guns. It's one of those directives that can be tacked on to the specification sheet should the Soldier get caught violating some other article of the UCMJ. It's kind of like getting caught speeding and while writing the ticket, the officer notices you don't have your seat belt on so you get a ticket for that as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
682 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Doesn't matter what kind of offense you think it is. It is a violation of the 2d Amendment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
Hey even your rules of engagement are different. I asked my cousin when he was in Iraq why he could not blast a guy with a rocket launcher. And he said they had to be fired on by that person. We just have to fear for our lives or great bodily harm. And that sucks for you guys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
LebbenB said:
Succinct and well-said, Maud'dib.
And also, alas, incorrect. The UCMJ spell out certain rights. Your constitutional rights are not suspended while in service, although they can be somewhat curtailed under the good order and discipline mantra.

I had a commander's JA (commonly known as JAGs, although each service technically only has a single JAG) once tell me that a CO could essentially order one of his Marines (and in this case one of his corpsmen) to do anything, provided the act ordered itself is legal. Really, I said. So if your CO orders you to sell your house and cars, you would have to? The JA (and the CO, by extension) was promptly reminded him of the bounds of his authority.

So no, despite assertions to the contrary, the constitution still applies to us. But please, don't take my clown a$$ word for it, I'm only a JA.

(If you noticed the annoyed tone of this post, it's that this is one of those enduring myths that really irks me and allows too many to take advantage of junior servicemembers.)
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top