Counting on a pro-gun organization for help? Don't count on it if you're military.

I

IZinterrogator

New member
Various units in the United States Army have recently put into effect policies requiring all gun owners in those units to register their personally-owned weapons with their units, regardless of the location of those guns. In the past, weapons kept on post or brought onto post ranges had to be registered with the Provost Marshal. Seeing as these weapons are being kept on or being brought onto federal property, that's just a hoop that a gun owner who puts himself in that position has to deal with. When I was living on post, I kept my guns off post, which gave me the choice to register or not and I chose not to. Now that choice has been taken away.

Every member of my old unit was forced to write a sworn statement stating whether or not they had firearms when it looked like the unit registration requirement was being ignored. I'll admit, the gun owners in my battalion all knew who had guns and who didn't and the requirement was being ignored while we sought assistance from outside groups. A couple of Soldiers who had only one or two guns and were relatively high-ranking gave up their information as cover for the rest of us while we contacted pro-gun rights organizations. Once we had to make the sworn statements, we were screwed. My company commander didn't even think what they were doing was legal. The fact that the brigade, battalion, or company commander could order us to turn in our weapons for "safekeeping" at their whim did not sit well with anyone. The basis for their decision to force us to register was, of course, Soldier safety. The brigade policy letter stated that it was to protect the leadership from disgruntled troops if they had to intervene in an off-post situation at the Soldier's home, the battalion commander said it was to protect Soldiers with mental issues from themselves. Basically, if you are being a problem, the commander can take your guns.

It was back in May when the policy was put into effect. I would have posted this sooner, but I was still a member of the unit. Now I'm not, so I have no problem with my thoughts on the policy being known. Anyways, several of us contacted the NRA-ILA. I'm a life member of the NRA, so I figured I could get some support. Their response was that since Heller was about a person trying to win the right to register a gun, they had to support registration. They also thought that the commander had the authority to force registration, so they didn't see the need to intervene. In addition to that, they said that they had received the same complaint from numerous Soldiers belonging to various units at other Army posts all over the country that week, so it wasn't just one brigade commander acting on his own. So the NRA-ILA was of no help. I contacted the GOA, of which I am also a life member. Their public liaison said they were against registration and that he would forward the info to his supervisor. I begged them to make the policy public so the weight of public opinion could be brought to bear against the Congress, who could do something about this. Nothing happened, no press release, no mention on their website, nothing. All I got was the public liaison lamenting that it wasn't the same Army he had served in back in the 1960s. So I contacted SAF, which I am also a life member of. They didn't even respond to my e-mail.

I used to train Soldiers in my off time using my weapons and ammo. We've done reflexive fire drills in my garage, AK-47 familiarization with my AKs, preliminary marksmanship instruction with my ARs and my Beretta, and live-fire training with my Beretta at an off-post range using my ammo. No more, never again. I can't let it be known from now on that I'm a gun owner in the military. And it's too bad since my former troops got more live-fire instruction from me than they ever did from the Army. Nobody will ever hand them a case of ammo again and have them practice until they're ankle-deep in brass. It will be 40 rounds a quarter on each weapons system from now on, and your nation is weaker as a result.

If you'd like to write your Congressman to complain about the policy, PM me and I'll send you the supporting documents to include with your letter. But without the weight of the NRA/GOA/SAF behind it, I'm not counting on any change.
 
I think the NRA wants ALL guns everywhere in private hands here registered.

Like they need it, they're the government! They know what I ate last night, who I screwed three years ago, and probably know that some other stuff too.
 
I do not know what is more disturbing the lack of cooperation for the "Pro-Gun" Organizations or the Army's policy. I will check on this at a military site I go to, to see if any word is bouncing around over there about this.
 
In '86, I brought my UZI on board ship, in California, had to check it through the base gate, cary it onto the ship under the eye of base security, and it was logged into the ships' armory. When I left the ship to return home, (honorable discharge), I cased it up, logged it out of the armory, and that was it. This type of stuff is nuts. What about soldiers who have firearms stored with parents, in other states, etc.? Do they have to "register" each off base firearm regardless of location? I am sorry, and hope this garbage gets thrown out.
 
I agree on the "not enough shooting" thing. I was in the Navy 7 years ago. we did an annual gunshoot. It was so restrictive that getting comfortable with the weapon was difficult. I remeber when the 1911 was retired from the Navy in about 96 or so. we had cases and cases of 45 we where expected to turn in or discard overboard. We ended up do a gunshoot where anybody who wanted to go could go and shoot as much 45 ammo as they could load into magazines. I had blisters on my thumbs for weeks after that. I was however, very very comfortable with the 45. We also had the opprotunity , back then to purchase a colt 45 for about $300. It was a little used as some of those 45 had 100000 rounds put through them in a day. It was alot of fun.
 
Do they have to "register" each off base firearm regardless of location?
Click to expand...
Let me quote the policy letter:
2.c Consequently, I require all Soldiers residing off-post to register with their units the make, model, type, caliber/gauge, and serial number of all privately-owned weapons present on their off-post property. Each company commander will maintain a consolidated list for the Soldiers assigned to his or her unit. Battalion commanders may choose to consolidate this information further.
Click to expand...
So if you leave your weapons at your parents' house, you don't have to register. If your spouse/significant other/roommate has their own weapons on your property, you have to register theirs. And if you don't?
Paragraph 2.c of this policy is punitive. Persons subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice may face administrative, nonjudicial, or judicial action under the UCMJ or other regulations for violations of this policy.
Click to expand...
CelticMP, a fellow board member here, used to live with me after he got divorced. So since he is a civilian and would absolutely refuse to register his pistol with my unit, I would face charges for it.
I will check on this at a military site I go to, to see if any word is bouncing around over there about this.
Click to expand...
NRA said they had received a lot of traffic on these types of policies from Hood and Bragg. And as we all know, as go Hood and Bragg, so goes the Army.
No sir, I don't own any firearms, sir!
Click to expand...
All well and good for some, but my company commander knew that I was taking troops to my house for reflexive fire drills and AK familiarization because I took them there during duty hours. We didn't have anything constructive to do at work, so I made good use of the time, and he approved of me doing it. Luckily, he also thinks that I'm a good platoon sergeant and that the policy isn't right, and we were both leaving soon, so he covered my ass. And the sworn statement required would get you slammed even harder for making a false statement under oath if the truth gets discovered. (Darn it, I was so busy clearing post I couldn't find time to go into the office and make a sworn statement. Oh well, whatcha gonna do?)

I should clarify, the NRA said they opposed registration, but that was their political position and not their legal position in the Heller case.
 
Last edited:
Smells like a pile of steaming poo.

Hopefully this stays with the Army and does not make it to our beloved Corps.

For the Army's sake, I hope it leaves them as well. Maybe if you guys would stop wearing your cammies in public you wouldn't have to publicize your firearms. Baby steps folks, baby steps... ;)
 
Cope, for the last time, they are ACUs, not cammies!!! And I don't see you coming through the DFW airport in your greens when coming home on R&R leave from Iraq, either. :p
 
Well, contacted the NRA and the GOA again today since we are now in a post-Heller kind of world. No response from the NRA yet, but the GOA still does not seem to think this is an issue, even with the registration of other people's weapons requirement. So much for my "no-compromise" gun rights organization.
 
Have you contacted the JPFO? I bet Aaron Zelman will poo on himself when he hears of this. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership is in my humble opinion (and I don't even have a cell of Jew blood in me) the least compromising organization of its type. www.jpfo.org
 
I'll just add this to one of the reasons I decided to just up and E.T.S after 12 yrs. active duty. :rolleyes:

I always kept mine off post in a locker at one of the local ranges. Shoot my CSM even brought many rifles and shotguns to work and would give me a day or two off just for fixing them for him. :cool:
 
Don't blame the gun rights groups....

Because the may not be able to do anything. Your situation is not the same as a private citizen. You do not have the same rights as a private citizen.

Any military court (and most likely any civilian court as well) would not view your failure to register your (personal off post) guns as a 2nd Amendment issue. They would view it as a "failure to follow a (lawful) order" issue.

And viewed that way, I am fairly certain you would lose. Unless clearly illegal (and pretty drastic, like the murder of unarmed civilians, for example) you and everyone else in the unit has to follow legal orders, like them or not. Your unit CO could as well order you to provide a list of the books in your residence, or how many pairs of socks, or what TV shows you watch, and it would be legal to punish you under the UCMJ for failing to comply. You simply have to do it, or face the consequences.

Now, if the did give some wackjob orders like that, you have to comply, and it would be up to them to prove you lied to them, if you told them you only had 5 pairs of socks when you actually had 7, but you would have to give them a list. Or a statement, or whatever it is they want. And if they caught you lying, you would be punished, and it would be legal. Sorry.

Because of the phrasing of the reasoning behind the requirement ("for the good of the service"), you would have a hard time going through channels (or going therough the old boy network) to raise valid questions about the orders, and the officers ability/fitness to command, which would be your only realistic option if he were giving ludicrious (yet legal) orders.

As long as you wear Uncle's clothes and take his money, you are pretty much stuck having to follow his rules, like it or not. You do not have the right to freedom of speech, or a reasonable expectation of privacy (even in civilian off post housing), nor do you have the protected 2nd Amendment rights. You are not under US common law, you are under the UCMJ, and as such, you are not afforded the rights of civilians.

I got out over 30 years ago, my children are currently serving, I understand your position, and much as it irks you, until you separate from the service, you are legally bound to comply with all the BS. Sorry.

Have you talked to the JAG about this? As I see it, that's about all you can legally do.
 
44 AMP:

As long as you wear Uncle's clothes and take his money, you are pretty much stuck having to follow his rules, like it or not. You do not have the right to freedom of speech, or a reasonable expectation of privacy (even in civilian off post housing), nor do you have the protected 2nd Amendment rights. You are not under US common law, you are under the UCMJ, and as such, you are not afforded the rights of civilians.
Click to expand...

Well the way I see it, when one swears to defend the Constitution of these United States against all enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC, that makes it one's duty to ATTACK a complete disregard of the principles to which one is sworn to defend.
The Commanding Officer who issued that abominable order has broken his Oath, and his Honor, and is no longer fit to Command. The same can be said for the SNCO's who politely put up with these violations and attacks on the Constitution which they are sworn to uphold.
 
Well the way I see it, when one swears to defend the Constitution of these United States against all enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC, that makes it one's duty to ATTACK a complete disregard of the principles to which one is sworn to defend.
Click to expand...

The military defends democracy, it doesn't practice it. Nor should it. You do not have the same rights in the military as you do as a civilian. When you leave the military you have your full civilian rights restored. That is not to say you have NO rights in the military, but you do not have full/all rights. You sign some of them away when you join. One good example of a right a civilian has that a military member does not is the right to quit his job. You can be imprisoned for doing that in the military, and in fact in time of war can even be shot for it (desertion). The UCMJ kind of becomes your new constitution while you are in the military.

I am a veteran, so no one please tear me down as not having any experience of which I write here. Anyway, all that out of the way I want to say I am totally AGAINST the registration they are asking for. I just don't think we can quite say it is illegal, dishonorable, unfit for command etc etc. It sucks, but it very well is likely legal. But then, who knows, maybe it did cross a legal line. It's too bad the organizations mentioned didn't challenge this to force the legal question.
 
44 Amp

I believe you a little bit misinformed about this.
As long as you wear Uncle's clothes and take his money, you are pretty much stuck having to follow his rules, like it or not. You do not have the right to freedom of speech, or a reasonable expectation of privacy (even in civilian off post housing), nor do you have the protected 2nd Amendment rights. You are not under US common law, you are under the UCMJ, and as such, you are not afforded the rights of civilians.
Click to expand...

Particullary the area I highlighted in red. As a former Army Criminal Investigator I had no rights to go search any off post housing, unless I had a search warrant. On post I had to believe a crime had been committed. Now in a barracks room I could not even search unless I had probable cause to believe there was evidence in the room. A barracks room though was subject to the old clause of "health and welfare", in other words they could go into your room looking for something that could effect you or your unit health, (the classic moldy ham and cheese sandwich) but this was only in the barracks.

The military has no rights to enter into a off post house at all. The only execption I could think of was if they had permission to retrieve equipment, and then only if given permission by the home owner.
 
Ssilicon, I too am a veteran of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. I still believe that this makes the commander unfit to command. Just because people have used the UCMJ to defend tyranny in the past doesn't make it propper or correct.

I stand by my previous statements.
 
I should clarify, the NRA said they opposed registration, but that was their political position and not their legal position in the Heller case.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for clarifying that. As stated, Heller did nothing to declare registration illegal. As a policy it may be opposed on principal but there is no standing to challenge the act or registration only as a violation of the 2A.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top