US Army Suppressing Soldier's 2nd Amendment Rights, OFF Base (Merged)

This is a discussion on US Army Suppressing Soldier's 2nd Amendment Rights, OFF Base (Merged) within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by i10casual I think it is a good idea. An example of inappropriate behavior among civilians can be seen in my military town. ...

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 75 of 75

Thread: US Army Suppressing Soldier's 2nd Amendment Rights, OFF Base (Merged)

  1. #61
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by i10casual View Post
    I think it is a good idea. An example of inappropriate behavior among civilians can be seen in my military town. An innocent child was shot in the head while riding his bike to school. The GI had been fighting with his girlfriend and was out of his head (which is understandable.) But he decided to kill this child in a moment of mental confusion. I know a lot of people are pro-military no matter what. But I only have to see one incident to make up my mind. I don't think we need another. I would have to trust the commanders thinking on this.
    So maybe you shouldn't be able to own a weapon either. I think that is a good idea too. I have read stories of Texas residents shooting other people in domestic violence incidents.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    As an Okie i can tell you that Inhofe is a total blithering idiot.

  4. #63
    Member Array MSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by i10casual View Post
    I think it is a good idea. An example of inappropriate behavior among civilians can be seen in my military town. An innocent child was shot in the head while riding his bike to school. The GI had been fighting with his girlfriend and was out of his head (which is understandable.) But he decided to kill this child in a moment of mental confusion. I know a lot of people are pro-military no matter what. But I only have to see one incident to make up my mind. I don't think we need another. I would have to trust the commanders thinking on this.
    I had a long response to this that I really could not figure out how to edit to a civil tone, so I'll just say that I hope you realise that your logic is the same used by all of the anti-2A people.
    AlabamaConstitution of 1819: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state.
    The world doesn't owe you anything. It was here first.-Mark Twain
    "Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."-John Wayne
    Sig P228; Micro Desert Eagle; S&W M&P Compact .357 sig

  5. #64
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,597
    Without any intent to comment on the wisdom or lack thereof of the order, I'd be surprised if there weren't underlying authority for it.

    Old saying, "when you join the military you don't lose your rights, it just seems that way."

  6. #65
    Senior Member Array DaveJay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    536
    As stated in a previous thread, I think this is a bad idea on the part of the Alaska commander...but I also feel this legislation is a bad idea...kinda like using a 20lb sledge on a roofing nail...

    Some soldier from that command needs to file an IG complaint about having their rights violated...and don't accept being blown off...follow through...

    And if groups like the NRA want to help with the complaint, I have no problem with that...

    But, please...legislation is not the way to go with this...
    VCDL Member
    "Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready."
    Theodore Roosevelt

  7. #66
    Member Array MSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    414
    This is another commander at Ft Riley. IF what he did was legal, which would suprise me for all the reasons I listed above, an IG complaint will not fix it. The only thing the IG has the authority to do is review the approptiate regs/laws and make recommendations to the commander. This doesn't say which commander issues the order, 1ID's or Riley's Garrison Commander, so an individual could just skip to DA IG, but if it is infact a lawful order, all IG can do is tell the Soldier complaining to suck it up. If it's legal, then it will take legislation to fix.
    If it's not legal, IG might be able to be convinced to recommend a fix, but a commander still has to take the recommendation (unless it somehow makes it the VCSA/CSA and they decide to fix it).
    AlabamaConstitution of 1819: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state.
    The world doesn't owe you anything. It was here first.-Mark Twain
    "Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."-John Wayne
    Sig P228; Micro Desert Eagle; S&W M&P Compact .357 sig

  8. #67
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,472
    +1 to azchevy and msteve.

    Sometimes the only way to get the attention of those in charge is a sledgehammer or 4x4, especially those with as much power a a base commander and one that would even think to issue such an order as this.

  9. #68
    VIP Member
    Array ctr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley in Virginia
    Posts
    2,309
    Quote Originally Posted by i10casual View Post
    I think it is a good idea. An example of inappropriate behavior among civilians can be seen in my military town. An innocent child was shot in the head while riding his bike to school. The GI had been fighting with his girlfriend and was out of his head (which is understandable.) But he decided to kill this child in a moment of mental confusion. I know a lot of people are pro-military no matter what. But I only have to see one incident to make up my mind. I don't think we need another. I would have to trust the commanders thinking on this.
    Always interesting to see how quickly justification is used to deprive others of their rights. Folks who so freely give up rights for whatever justification will quickly find they have none.

  10. #69
    Distinguished Member Array Tally XD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    1,831
    Quote Originally Posted by i10casual View Post
    I think it is a good idea. An example of inappropriate behavior among civilians can be seen in my military town. An innocent child was shot in the head while riding his bike to school. The GI had been fighting with his girlfriend and was out of his head (which is understandable.) But he decided to kill this child in a moment of mental confusion. I know a lot of people are pro-military no matter what. But I only have to see one incident to make up my mind. I don't think we need another. I would have to trust the commanders thinking on this.
    I suggest you do a very thorough reading of this forums "In The News: Good, Bad and the Ugly" and tell us all about inappropriate behavior by people with guns and other weapons. Being a soldier on a military base has absolutely nothing to do with gun ownership. This guy would have done the same thing wherever he was regardless of being on a military base.
    I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.
    - Barack Obama Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2004

  11. #70
    Senior Member Array Shadowsbane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,051
    Buddy of mine on another forum is stationed at Fort Hood. This has been in effect since the shooting at least at that base.
    Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.

    www.Lonelymountainleather.com

  12. #71
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    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."

    I'm a 50 year+ NRA member. Did a lot of research on this one today: The NRA is lying. I had a go round with the NRA on this today. They can cite no reference for this statement. This is not the first time the NRA has told an outright lie or distorted the facts. I will most likely quit the NRA in disgust. BTW: Gun registration is permissable under Heller.


    For many years Ft. Sill has had a gun registration policy.
    Active duty Army members who live on base register all their guns. Active duty members who live off base are required to register any guns that they desire to bring on base for the purpose of recreational shooting or hunting: Ditto for retirees and civil servants.


    A better take on the Army's proposed policy on privately owned guns without the NRA lies:

    Military to adopt broad policy on privately-owned guns - News - Stripes

    Italics mine.
    The new policy is not meant to restrict private ownership of weapons, and it does not apply to troops living off base, Defense Department spokesman Lt. Col. Les Melnyk told Stars and Stripes in an e-mail Thursdsay.

    “DOD is preparing and coordinating a department-wide Interim Guidance message
    regarding minimum standards for the registration, transportation, use and storage of privately owned weapons on DOD installations,” the e-mail said.

    Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered this week that a comprehensive new policy be developed to cover all branches of the military and its bases and offices. The standardized policy would replace or buttress a patchwork of regulations adopted by each service or individual military installation.

    The weapons policy is among recommendations for security and administrative upgrades released by the Pentagon on Thursday. Gates ordered that an interim weapons policy be in force by June, and a permanent one by early next year.

    The new policy is expected to mirror restrictions already in place at some military installations that, for example, require guns brought onto a base to be registered with military police.
    Inhofe is a certified blithering idiot.

  13. #72
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    15,952
    Quote Originally Posted by KiowaDriver View Post
    NRA-ILA :: Sen. Inhofe Introduces Legislation To Protect Second Amendment<br>Rights Of Military And Dept. Of Defense Civilian Personnel

    Sen. Inhofe Introduces Legislation To Protect Second Amendment
    Rights Of Military And Dept. Of Defense Civilian Personnel

    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."
    A good post, but do you realize that in the time you spent posting this, you could have sent it to the Sec. of the Army and Sec. of Defense (and anyone else involved) where it would be more effective?
    Retired USAF E-8. Remember: You're being watched!
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  14. #73
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    you could have sent it to the Sec. of the Army and Sec. of Defense (and anyone else involved) where it would be more effective?

    I did just that. Also sent a scathing e-mail to NRA-ILA.

    BTW: My dad was a SeaBee in the Pacific also. He did not make Tinian. He did make several other islands including the Phillipines and Okinawa.

  15. #74
    Member Array MSGTTBAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    PENSACOLA, FL
    Posts
    206

    How times have changed

    I retired in 1984. Prior to that time, during hunting season, about 2/3 of the pickups in the base parking lots had shotguns in the back window gun racks and some had dogs in the dog box in the bed of the truck. Nothing was ever said about registering guns (or dogs).
    a different era.
    Life is too short to be serious!

  16. #75
    Senior Member Array DIABLO9489's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    1,071
    Quote Originally Posted by retsupt99 View Post
    Of course any army dirtbags (the type who killed the FT. Hood soldiers) will certainly follow those orders......and the other 99.999% of the good soldiers will be forced to suffer being disarmed? I hope not...perhaps this will be shoved up the backside of the commanders giving these kinds of orders.

    Our soldiers should not be disarmed at home, or on base...what a disgrace!
    I hear that. Just goes to show you that even after a tragedy like Ft. Hood people are still stupid enough to come up with and actually enforce these rules
    Colt New Agent, Dan Wesson V-Bob, Glock 19,20SF, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30SF, 36, Kahr P380 w/CT, PM9, PM45, CW9(SOLD), Kel-Tec P32, P3AT, PF9(SOLD), Kimber Ultra Crimson Carry II, Stainless Pro TLE/RL II (SOLD), Rohrbaugh R9s, Ruger LCP w/CT, LCR, SP101 S&W J-Frame 638 w/CT, M&P 340 w/CT, Walther PPK/S

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Mc vs Feds - Open military base rights? Opinion q and a.
    By tangoseal in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: July 12th, 2010, 09:34 AM
  2. Mass Shooting at Ft. Hood Texas Army Base (Merged) - Updated
    By kdydak in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 326
    Last Post: November 26th, 2009, 06:35 AM
  3. Secure your Second Amendment Rights; Talk to a soldier
    By bigiceman in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: March 1st, 2009, 10:38 AM
  4. Why attack an army base?
    By ExactlyMyPoint in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: January 26th, 2008, 09:17 AM
  5. Terrorists target Army base in Arizona
    By dunndw in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: January 8th, 2008, 06:37 PM

Search tags for this page

can a u..s soldier speak offline and off the record i to a another soldier is there a army reg

,

can soldiers carry personal weapons

,

can soldiers carry personal weapons off base

,

can soldiers carry personal weapons off duty

,

can soldiers carry weapons off base

,
can soldiers carry weapons off duty
,

eglin bx guns

,

fort sill privately owned weapons range

,
how much is a soldier given to live off-base?
,
law that states that off duty soldiers cannot carry guns
,
privately owned weapons on fort sill
,
us army military rights for soldiers forum
,
usarak weapons registration
,
what act prevented federal troops having loaded weapons off base
,
www.wainwright.army.mil/65eod
Click on a term to search for related topics.