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

[Herknav]

S.3388: A bill to protect the rights under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of... OpenCongress

Text of the bill:

S.3388 - A bill to protect the rights under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of members of the Armed Forces and civilian employees of the Department of Defense by prohibiting the Department of Defense from requiring the registration of privately-owned firearms, ammunition, or other weapons not stored in facilities owned or operated by the Department of Defense, and by prohibiting the Department of Defense from infringing on the right of individuals to lawfully acquire, possess, own, carry, or otherwise use privately owned firearms, ammunition, or other weapons on property not owned or operated by the Department of Defense.

Please ask your Senator to support this legislation proposed by Sen Inhofe of OK. I have talked before about how the USARAK commander has banned carry of weapons for all Army troops in AK. Others have discussed off-base weapons registration schemes. This bill may help curb some of the silliness put in place by DoD.

Even if it doesn't affect you or anyone you know, please take some time to support the troops.

Thanks,
Herk

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[BRTCP88]

Done.

[charlie1826]

I want to make sure I'm reading it right, this would prevent DOD from making rules about our firearms off-base but on-base rules still apply right? I have yet to be stationed at a base that tried to regulate firearms off-base, but I would definitely support a law that would prevent them from trying.

[Herknav]

That is the way I read it.

[shooterX]

Done

[MN2Go]

We support our troops - most of my family has or is currently serving.

Note to self: compose a letter to the senator.

Note to self: be nice.

[DaveJay]

I've read this bill (thanks for the heads up and link) twice...and have to admit I'm torn by this...

Regarding military members, a commander has the ultimate responsibility for his troops, and thus, has been granted much leeway in carrying out this mission...a commander can tell uniformed personnel where they cannot go in the community by placing a business establishment off limits...a commander can restrict who a troop can associate with by giving them a direct order not to associate with a person or group (radical/racist/gangs, etc)...

And IMHO, a commander can order his uniformed personnel not to carry personal weapons within his AOR...not a great order in this case, but one that is legal and binding until overturned by higher authority...

I understand that is the point of this legislation...but it opens a slippery slope, again IMHO, because you start to whittle away at a commanders authority on an issue that is near and dear to YOUR heart...which sets up the example to follow for the next group to come along with an issue near and dear to their heart to try and whittle away a little more command authority...

When one joins the military, they VOLUNTEER to give up rights that civilians hold dear (AND SHOULD!!!)...Military members cannot strike...protest...can't even go on record speaking ill about the President...without risking judicial action...

Now, this General...IMHO...has NO RIGHT to tell civilian employees of the DoD that they can't carry personal weapons in his AOR as long as they follow local law...unlike uniformed members, who belong to the military 24/7/365, civilian employees only belong to the DoD while on duty...

[OldVet]

I don't see where this bill changes anything that's not already in effect. Servicemen can currently possess firearms off DoD property, and no DoD registration is required. It would change nothing for those who live in base housing, as that is still DoD property and falls within the scope of DoD regulations.

As for civilian employees, those who feel the need to carry a firearm on DoD property outweighs the need to have a job with an employer who has said no, can certainly change places with me--in the unemployment line. As with any business (or employer), it can set the conditions under which you work, and you can either accept those conditions or work elsewhere.

I don't know of any time the DoD has attempted to control the possession of firearms by anybody outside of DoD property, either military personnel or civilian.

[BRTCP88]

I don't see where this bill changes anything that's not already in effect. Servicemen can currently possess firearms off DoD property, and no DoD registration is required. It would change nothing for those who live in base housing, as that is still DoD property and falls within the scope of DoD regulations.

As for civilian employees, those who feel the need to carry a firearm on DoD property outweighs the need to have a job with an employer who has said no, can certainly change places with me--in the unemployment line. As with any business (or employer), it can set the conditions under which you work, and you can either accept those conditions or work elsewhere.

I don't know of any time the DoD has attempted to control the possession of firearms by anybody outside of DoD property, either military personnel or civilian.

I think someone said that the Commander of USARAK ordered his troops not to carry weapons off base. I could be misinterpreting that though.

[OldVet]

I think someone said that the Commander of USARAK ordered his troops not to carry weapons off base. I could be misinterpreting that though.

"Thinking" "someone" said something is what perpetuates myths and legends.

Either he did (I doubt it) or he didn't, but the facts would be nice. I can't see the USARAK (US Army Res-Alaska?) doing that, when it's permitted by the state and fed gov't.

[DaveH]

I want to make sure I'm reading it right, this would prevent DOD from making rules about our firearms off-base but on-base rules still apply right? I have yet to be stationed at a base that tried to regulate firearms off-base, but I would definitely support a law that would prevent them from trying.

The only case I've heard of personally was in Alaska, where one army command which at least used to ban open carry by soldiers off post.

Please, if anyone has other examples of off base restrictions or registration, post details here.

[BRTCP88]

"Thinking" "someone" said something is what perpetuates myths and legends.

Either he did (I doubt it) or he didn't, but the facts would be nice. I can't see the USARAK (US Army Res-Alaska?) doing that, when it's permitted by the state and fed gov't.

It's in the OP. I "think" that's what he meant, but I could be wrong.

[SIGguy229]

I just don't want a commander to follow-up on the Alaska Command and issue the same order (Think: NORTHCOM commander issuing the same order for all CONUS Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines). Whereas the other orders regarding political speech is outlined in the Hatch Act and UCMJ, there is nothing in the UCMJ that prohibits carry of personal firearms on leave/pass off-base (I would say "off-duty", but you are never off duty).

It puts the servicemember in a quandry...do they violate the order (if challenged and found lawful) and be subject to the UCMJ? or do they leave their safety up to someone else?

If a commander wants to institute this policy on-base, fine...I wouldn't like it, but that's the price you pay for living on base (I'm thinking family housing in this instance; privately owned firearms are prohibited in the dorms/barracks). If a commander wants to institute this policy off-base...I will challenge the order...and make decisions from there.

In the mean time, I don't see a problem with the proposed legislation.

BTW--if I was a commander, I would never issue this kind of order. I'm senior enough to know a few commanders who wouldn't issue an order like this either.

"Thinking" "someone" said something is what perpetuates myths and legends.

Either he did (I doubt it) or he didn't, but the facts would be nice. I can't see the USARAK (US Army Res-Alaska?) doing that, when it's permitted by the state and fed gov't.

http://www.wainwright.army.mil/65eod...%20Letter.docx

See the bottom of page 2

. If living off post, any personnel firearm that is brought onto the installation must be registered as well. Concealed carry in Alaska is legal, but the USARAK Commander has restricted the concealed carry of firearms by all soldiers whether on or off duty, in uniform or civilian clothing.

[DaveH]

http://www.wainwright.army.mil/65eod...%20Letter.docx

Need a little help here.

I cant seem to get the thing to unzip.

Please post.

dave

Nevermind found a copy at http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...us-advice.html

[DaveJay]

BTW--if I was a commander, I would never issue this kind of order. I'm senior enough to know a few commanders who wouldn't issue an order like this either.

As a former commander, I would never issue this type of order for more than one reason...

1. 2nd Amendment...
2. NEVER issue an order you can't enforce. How the heck does he plan to enforce it outside the gate???

Having said that, to use legislation to eat into command authority is like using an Uzi to eliminate cockroaches...a little overkill...