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

IANAL, but to me the order says nothing about personal firearms that are stored elsewhere -- like a rented storage facility somewhere.

So register the one pistol that you keep at home, and not the rest of your guns that you store in a locker at the gun range (or your girlfriend's house, or wherever)
 
Yes, TwoXForr, off post a warrant would be needed

What I was thinking at the time (although I didn't bother to spell it out clearly was that while a warrant would be needed for off post premises, I can't see any Judge refusing a request from the Provost Marshall to search a soldiers's dwelling, so issueing a warrant would be a somple matter, a virtual rubberstamp.

I know it should not be this way, but I also understand how the world works most of the time. It may be different today, but 30 plus years ago, when I was in the service, if the MPs wanted a warrant for civilian housing, they asked and got one, no trouble. A civilian LEO usually went along, to "observe and assist".

Forgive me for not being completely clear. You are correct, as a technical point of law, a search warrant is needed. As I practical matter, I believe a warrant would be no problem to obtain.

If I am still in error, please enlighten me. And Thanks.
 
I do not think it would be a "rubber stamp" as you say probable cause laid out in a affaidaviat would have to be established.

And stating what crime is being investigated, I dont know to many judges that would want to get involved with the UCMJ crime "false sworn statement" it would look like a witch hunt.

So a Commanding Officer would have to get a sworn statement he believes to be false, then he would have to produce evidence (sworn statements from other persons stating they saw the weapons at the off post housing, or something to that effect) have a Staff Judge Advocate Lawyer do the affiadavit for the judge (civilian in this case) and then if the judge approved it have the local CID (Military Police have no jurisdiction of post, CID limited) along with a local law enforcement go search the residence. All a person would have to do to thwart this is remove the weapons to another location.

Of course I was in Army CID 13 years ago so maybe things have changed since then.
 
You are probably better informed than I am

TwoXForrm your background gives youo a much better informed view than I have, as I got out over 30 years ago, but it seems to me that there is still likely a "legal" means of getting around the law for those determined to enforce their authority.

Back in those far off days things were no doubt quite different than they are today, but I think the system could still be "gamed" by those with an agenda.

Do officers and NCOs still retain their legal authority to give orders off post? In the old days, a "visit" by an officer/NCO to your off post apartment was dreaded (if you had anything to hide), because if you refused to let them in, you might be charged with refusing an order ("open that door private!"). While a civilian court might find you within your rights, the UCMJ might not. I knew many people who took article 15s, (even though they might have won in Civilian court) rather than face a Courts Martial, because if you lost in a Court Martial, you faced a Federal conviction. I saw situations where guys had dope, and never got charged with the dope, but got charged with failing to obey an order (and the dope was convienently left out of the evidence). I saw one case where a troop who had previously been busted for dope decided he would screw with his NCO, and ground up asprin and kept it in a baggie. When it was found, he got an article 15 (which he chose over a court martial), because his ploy backfired on him. He said it was asprin, they said it was dope, and in those days, at that place, by the time it got to a court martial, it would have been dope, officially.

Abuses of this kind still exist, I am sure, much as we try to have a system that is above that, the people in the system can still find a way to screw over those that they have a grudge against, most of the time. You might be able to fight the system and win, but most folks won't take the chance unless they have to. We used to say that if you were guilty, the best place for you was a civilian court, and if you were innocent the best place was a military court. But that only applied to violations of law, not violations of the UCMJ, of which one can be innocent of breaking the law, but guilty of breaking the UCMJ over a great many things.

We also used to say, "It isn't the Army, its the people in the Army". True then, and I think still true today. I could be wrong, it happens. But I have children in the service right now, and also the children of friends as well, and they tell me things that lead me to think that the more things change, the more some things stay the same.

Thank you for educating me on the proper legal process. All I am really trying to say is that while there are rules to be followed, there are also times when the rules don't get applied in the proper fashion. And I can see a potential for abuse of the rules causing great harm for some "personal rights activist" as long as they are in uniform. Even Generals don't get to speak their minds without repercussions, at least until after they retire!
 
44 AMP said:
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.
Click to expand...
Is it in fact a lawful order?
 
Lawful order

Times and terminology change, and perhaps I am not using the best term, so, if there is a better one, let me know.

30+ years ago when I was in the service, orders from officers were "direct orders" and orders from NCOs were "Lawful orders" under the UCMJ.

I was using the term lawful order in the more common civilian sense, meaning an order that did not violate common law. Your superiors may order you to paint yourself purple, or any number of things that do not violate criminal law, and you must obey. Orders that violate the privacy rights of soldiers are also legal, as long as they are within the limits of the UCMJ. Soldiers rights are not the same as civilians. The service contract limits personal constitutional rights for those serving. What would not be a lawful thing in civilian society may very well be lawful under military law.

There are some things that soldiers are protected against. They cannot be ordered to change their religion (although they can be regulated in how they can practice it, for the good of the service, they cannot be forbidden to practice a recognised religion), they cannot be ordered to vote in a certain way. Second Amendment rights are not prohibited, but they are heavily regulated. On base (or on ship) this is a non issue. Their place, their rules. Off base in the US, it gets clouded, especially when there can easily be civilians (dependants or not) involved. Although an invasion of privacy, asking for a list of guns kept at home (off base) by a serviceman may not be a legal violation of law. I just do not know for sure (and until a court says so, neither can anyone else be certain).

But suppose I lived off base with my girlfriend (or just a buddy/roommate) who was not in the service. Would I have to give my CO a sworn statement of the guns that they owned? I think this is am important point, as if it were me, then "no, sir. I do not keep any firearms in my off post dwelling." My girlfriend might have 15 rifles and handguns, but is that any of their business? And would I be violating the order if I did not volunteer that information? I think a lot would depend on how the order was worded.

Any thoughts on that situation?
 
Unfortunately, this has spread to (parts of?) the USAF.
We got that policy handed down about 6 months ago. It doesn't make any sense to me how a firearm stored in Orlando, FL would be of military concern to a commander of an airman stationed in Colorado.

Aren't all orders supposed to have a "valid military purpose?"
 
suicide rates in the Army especially are skyrocketing. Last I saw they were several times that of US civilian. Mostly after returning from duty. I don't know if that is a good reason to do this, but I am confident that is why this was done. Now if you are on suicide watch they can seize your weapons. Not sure I like the idea, but... whatever.
 
Well, it's late Saturday night here, so I can't do anything until Monday. But I'll certainly stop in at my house of rep. man early MOnday morning. He is ex military, 82a/b. Let's see what he can do. I suspect you have some kind of an anti-gun nut for c.o. who thinks the army should rull the world, just like the UN.
 
An IG guy who posts over on THR and I are working up our plan of attack right now.
Click to expand...

I think your best bet is to attack it from the angle of non-servicemembers living with the servicemember (spouses, girlfriends, kids, whoever). Unfortunately this seems like a lawful (if entirely unreasonable) restriction to place on servicemembers, but I'm pretty sure the UCMJ doesn't apply to family members and thus they may still have some rights.

But suppose I lived off base with my girlfriend (or just a buddy/roommate) who was not in the service. Would I have to give my CO a sworn statement of the guns that they owned? I think this is am important point, as if it were me, then "no, sir. I do not keep any firearms in my off post dwelling." My girlfriend might have 15 rifles and handguns, but is that any of their business? And would I be violating the order if I did not volunteer that information? I think a lot would depend on how the order was worded.
Click to expand...

I'd wager it would be worded such that you would be violating it. You could always claim you didn't know they had the guns, and you might get away with it (as in, not suffer any direct consequences), but at the same time if you aren't married you may suddenly find yourself restricted from living off-post...if I remember correctly (from my time active with the Army) that was a privilege, and one that could be revoked, for single servicemembers. One that is nearly always granted for those about E-6 or up, but I'm guessing you could still find yourself back in the barracks (or maybe even BOQ...there's always somebody who outranks you).
 
Unmarried? Yes, it is a privilege but there is revoked...

and then there is restricted. If you are the least bit intelligent, as long as you are not restricted to barracks (confined to quarters), living off post is merely a matter of money and convenience.

Way back in the dark ages when I was a troop, I spent several months living off post, even though I was single, and not eligible for the privilege. Quite simple, really. All you need is a car (or a very dependable buddy with a car), and a place to live. You keep your bunk made up, your locker and your area squared away, and you be there in time to do your part in barracks cleaning each morning. And, of course, you keep your mouth shut about where you sleep, what you do and where you go in your off duty time.

You are not "living" off post, you just "go out" for the evening. As long as you do not have duty, and are not restricted to barracks (or the company area, etc.) you are free to go. With cell phones there is no place you cannot be reached in case of an alert (which was the old justification for keeping us restricted to base), so it should be no problem. As long as you are not in a training situation (basic, AIT, or some other school) and you are permanent party duty in the states, it should be posssible, unless or until you tick off your NCOs or officers enough for them to take a special interest in how you spend your off duty time. Spending a night or two a week in the barracks is good cover as well. It isn't as easy or as practical if you are overseas, or TDY on some base, in those situations, it usually isn't worth it to even try.
back on topic
We got that policy handed down about 6 months ago. It doesn't make any sense to me how a firearm stored in Orlando, FL would be of military concern to a commander of an airman stationed in Colorado.
Click to expand...

Are we to understand that they are asking airmen about guns stored in their home of record? IS this right? If so, how the hell can that work? Many (most?) young men's home of record when they enlist is their parents home, and it can stay that way until they set up housekeeping on their own, and many never do until they get out of the service.

Boy, I hope they never ask my son to give a sworn statement about the guns in my home! All he could do is answer that there are some! He has no idea how many or what they all are. He is currently in Korea! Is the policy limited only to servicemen in the states, I wonder?

Please, raimius give us some more details....
 
30+ years ago when I was in the service, orders from officers were "direct orders" and orders from NCOs were "Lawful orders" under the UCMJ.
Click to expand...

I think this may depend on the branch of service you are in, and possibly where you are stationed. My base had a policy letter we were required to read once a year, which explained the differences in orders regarding rank of the individual giving it.

Direct orders could only come from an O-6 or higher. Failure to obey was an automatic court matial.
Lawful orders were given by anyone else holding an NCO or CO rank. Failure to obey was handled at the lowest level possible.

-

Yes, this is spreading to the USAF. Last year, those of us in my unit that were known firearm owners were called into a meeting with our commander.
In the meeting, he explained the 'new policy' of registering all firearms, regardless of location. Then he informed us that he was going to partially disobey the order. Instead of requiring serial number registration, and location; he had his own form created for the sworn statement.
There were 3 questions:
1. Do you own one or more pistols? YES / NO
2. Do you own one or more long guns? YES / NO
3. If yes to (1.) or (2.), Are they stored safely and securely in accordance with USAF policy XX-XXX? YES / NO

The whole situation sucks, but there are good guys out there.
 
This whole situation is worrying me more and more now that I hear that it has spread to the AirForce as well.

I am sorry, but if a Airman/Soldier is going to kill him/herself, what is to prevent him/her from doing it with a government owned firearm? Recruits do it often enough on the rifle range for it to not be unheard of.

I understand that there are more restrictions, and I work within those government restrictions on a day to day basis, but good Lord, I can't think of any good reason for this registration of privately owned firearms other than to be able to take them away from those most likely to be able to effectively employ them in the case of full blown tyranny.

Hand me my tin foil hat if you think I need it, but I view this as a serious restriction of not only the military member's liberty, but of the safety and Freedom of These United States' Citizenry as well. It potentially nullifies much of our bullwark against tyranny. That's my two cents.
 
The question I would have is twofold.
Is it legal for the federal government to keep records of legal civilian privately owned firearms? The sericemembers family or roomates for example. And what happens to the records when the soldier leaves the military?
 
Don't sign anything related to off post gun registration. Once you sign it, they may use anything on it against you. They may make threats but most likely it will blow over. Just tell them you moved your guns to dad's-uncle's-friend's-whoever's house to comply with any new rules, but you're not signing anything because you don't trust them (use it in the same way as your right to remain silent).

My position was, if you show me a little respect as a person and a member of the unit, I'll be a productive member of the unit and get my job done. If you start screwing with me as a person, you won't get much out of me. You may have the means to do all sorts of bad things to me, but you're going to waste a lot of recources in the process.

In my opinion, most of today's military leadership are a bunch of politicians in uniforms.
 
44AMP said:
raimius said:
We got that policy handed down about 6 months ago. It doesn't make any sense to me how a firearm stored in Orlando, FL would be of military concern to a commander of an airman stationed in Colorado.
Click to expand...

Are we to understand that they are asking airmen about guns stored in their home of record? IS this right? If so, how the hell can that work? Many (most?) young men's home of record when they enlist is their parents home, and it can stay that way until they set up housekeeping on their own, and many never do until they get out of the service.

Boy, I hope they never ask my son to give a sworn statement about the guns in my home! All he could do is answer that there are some! He has no idea how many or what they all are. He is currently in Korea! Is the policy limited only to servicemen in the states, I wonder?

Please, raimius give us some more details....
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I do not have the policy at hand. Basically, the powers that be ordered that all privately owned firearms be registered to include serial number, make, model, and some other info. There was no provision about the location of the firearm. That was the part that got me. Most of the policy on owning/maintaining specific types of property only extends 150mi from base (abitrary number, but whatever...). This policy had no such provision.

As for the limits of the policy, this specific one pertained only to USAF Academy cadets. I have no idea if other commanders are issueing similar/identical orders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top