View Full Version : Even if you live off post.
Fort Hood soldiers told to list private weapons
Base requires make, model, serial number and who owns them
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=209557
Blue
Eagle5US
10-02-2010, 20:26
It has been this way for as long as I can remember, at every post I have been stationed on and lived off post....so from '84 forward.
That being said, I have never been stationed on Hood so maybe it is new there.
Eagle
The Reaper
10-02-2010, 20:28
Fort Hood soldiers told to list private weapons
Base requires make, model, serial number and who owns them
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=209557
Blue
I believe this to be an unlawful order.
TR
Eagle5US
10-02-2010, 20:37
I believe this to be an unlawful order.
TR
LOL...
Once I got tired of going through the whole serial number registration forms and format crap...I tried saying that exact thing when I inprocessed at Drum, PACOM, Lewis, Leonard Wood, and here Bliss.
Only at Bliss...Suddenly I was locked in a little room with 4 DOD Security folks waiting on the MP's to arrive and read me the post commander's policy on handgun ownership and registration for off post personnel.:rolleyes:
2 hours later they "let me go" after telling me that I was lucky I didn't get cited for "being disruptive":munchin
Go figure...ME! DISRUPTIVE! Me thinks not.
Eagle
Angry Mike
10-02-2010, 20:41
Interesting turn of events.
I wonder if this has been brought to the attention of the General Counsel at OSD?
Secondly, NRA members should bring this to the attention of the NRA as they usually correspond rapidly over actions like this.
On our last post, the PMO tried to make all soldiers and civilians register all weapons individually owned. This was brought up the VA State Attorney General, and we quickly stomped in the mud. The PMO's authority ends at the gate. The Garrison CDR has to work with the local and state governments also.
I wonder where the FT Hood authority stops? Seeing as TX law provides an incredible amount of permission for CCW holders, how does that conflict with the FHTX post regulations? Heck, with a TX CCW, you can enter the state capital without going through a metal detector.
Interesting turn o f events.
MT
On post I get it...Off post I don't.
When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen.
George Washington
Blue
Eagle5US
10-02-2010, 20:57
We have had 2 active shooter incidents here on Bliss in the last 18 months. Not counting three individuals I have passively disarmed in my Emergency Department (1 VA Beneficiary and two soldiers all presenting for psych stuff and had handguns either on their person or in their back-packs). Others here have encountered similar situations secondary to the VERY large latin gang influence now in El Paso who also work as "muscle" across the border in Juarez. Yes - soldiers included.
I have brought up to multiple flag officers at the open forum active shooter plan of action discussions that we should consider allowing persons with CC permits to carry on post. Never is this taken seriously or even considered.
Last week I was charged with assault by the PMO when I stepped in and took down a Latin Gang member who was beating the living shit out of my 73 year old DOD Police officer who was posted in my ER to "protect the Emergency Department Staff". Once on the ground, I secured said gang member with the cops cuffs. The hospital attorney reviewed the tapes and got the charges dropped (and the DOD Cop moved to the information desk)...but the point was that I (as a provider in the ED) was even put in that position in order to protect my staff. What if Latin gang guy would have gotten the cops gun? What then? I yell "code WHITE" over the intercom and what...that's going to make him stop?
After THAT incident, I asked if we could at least have a tazer at the nurses station...again, the answer was no.:rolleyes:
What MORE as to happen before someone takes the fact seriously that the best person to protect me...is ME. Was the Hood shooter not enough? VA Tech? Tacoma Mall? Austin Library? One responsible handgun owner would have shut that thing down. TEN responsible handgun owners would have shut it down even faster.
Sorry - rant off....but damn. This really gets me worked up.:mad:
Eagle
If the local community outside the post issues a ccw permit then how hard would it be to issue them for the post.
Active and retired military members should be trusted just like civilians.
The good guys will never win with both hands tied behind our backs.
Blue
I believe this to be an unlawful order.I concur. I have never been ordered to list weapons I kept off post. Heck, I never remember registering my weapons on post at either Benning and Wainwright. When I was at Devens, I left my guns with my folks.
Utah Bob
10-02-2010, 22:19
Seems to me I heard something like this last year (before Hasan) when a company commander at some post directed his people to do the same. I can't recall the location though.
The order was countermanded by higher ups pretty quick after it hit the papers.
EDIT.
Found it! It was Ft Campbell in 2009.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/soldiers-private-guns/
I agree with TR.
However, back at Bragg in the early 70's we had to list what and with whom if we lived in the barracks and somebody off post kept such items for us; the list was only for use by an SAO doing an inventory of a deceased SM's property.
Richard :munchin
We have had 2 active shooter incidents here on Bliss in the last 18 months. Not counting three individuals I have passively disarmed in my Emergency Department (1 VA Beneficiary and two soldiers all presenting for psych stuff and had handguns either on their person or in their back-packs). Others here have encountered similar situations secondary to the VERY large latin gang influence now in El Paso who also work as "muscle" across the border in Juarez. Yes - soldiers included.
I have brought up to multiple flag officers at the open forum active shooter plan of action discussions that we should consider allowing persons with CC permits to carry on post. Never is this taken seriously or even considered.
Last week I was charged with assault by the PMO when I stepped in and took down a Latin Gang member who was beating the living shit out of my 73 year old DOD Police officer who was posted in my ER to "protect the Emergency Department Staff". Once on the ground, I secured said gang member with the cops cuffs. The hospital attorney reviewed the tapes and got the charges dropped (and the DOD Cop moved to the information desk)...but the point was that I (as a provider in the ED) was even put in that position in order to protect my staff. What if Latin gang guy would have gotten the cops gun? What then? I yell "code WHITE" over the intercom and what...that's going to make him stop?
After THAT incident, I asked if we could at least have a tazer at the nurses station...again, the answer was no.:rolleyes:
What MORE as to happen before someone takes the fact seriously that the best person to protect me...is ME. Was the Hood shooter not enough? VA Tech? Tacoma Mall? Austin Library? One responsible handgun owner would have shut that thing down. TEN responsible handgun owners would have shut it down even faster.
Sorry - rant off....but damn. This really gets me worked up.:mad:
Eagle
It sounds like your PMO needs a common sense check. The only place I had to register my weapons was Devens where we lived on Davao Cir. Our front door was accidentally left unlocked when we were gone for the weekend once. MP's cleared the house and found my weapons and some ammo, including several boxes of 5.56. They inventoried everything and left a copy in my apartment. I went to the Provost Marshal and got everything back without a problem, including the 5.56.
RichL025
10-03-2010, 19:53
It has been this way for as long as I can remember, at every post I have been stationed on and lived off post....so from '84 forward.
That being said, I have never been stationed on Hood so maybe it is new there.
Eagle
I have never been to a post that required soldiers living off-post to register their weapons.
I am on Ft Lewis currently. Such a message came out a few weeks ago. Apparently, I was not the only one who thought it was unreasonable, since less than 3 hours later an email came out specifying that it did NOT apply to soldiers living off-post who did not anticipate taking their weapons on post (ie, range, hunting etc).
We'll see how long this lasts.
Active duty soldiers forbidden to own private weapons. Forbidden to drive motorcycles. Forbidden to sky-dive, or to partake in any other activity deemed "risky".
Any of this could happen.
alright4u
10-03-2010, 20:53
On post I get it...Off post I don't.
When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen.
George Washington
Blue
Off post is not under military law. The order is unlawful. Now, the local police can require one to register all new firearm purchases if it is state law.
Remember the zero defects army?
Commanders adverse to any risk whatsoever.
ART15's for breaking the seal on the reaction ammo cans.
Finally, OCONUS Astan/Iraq, soldiers keep their weapons/ammo at all times. How many years did warrior Officers/NCO's ask higher for this very thing...train as you fight maybe.
You'd think soldiers, of any rank, would understand that only criminals need disarming, not the general population....nope.
When I go on post I carry and take the risk, it's that or throw the gun in the weeds as you take a chance of a vehicle search, better to keep it on you.
Against the law, yes...I'll chance it.
mojaveman
10-03-2010, 22:51
I'm interested if anyone can remember what the regulations were on Ft. Bragg during the 80s. I lived in the 5th Group barracks on Gruber Rd. and saw quite a variety of weapons being kept in wall lockers. Pistols, rifles, shotguns, assualt rifles, muzzle loaders, crossbows, spearguns, blowguns, swords, etc. I was a little more cautious. I kept my firearms locked in a container in a storage facility off post.
Combat Diver
10-04-2010, 01:11
Forts Bragg and Campbell when I was there 06-08' only required registeration if the weapons were brought onto post. I lived in the 5th SFGA barracks in 84-86' and only remember that we were not supposed to keep firearms in the barracks. We were supposed to have them locked up in the arms room or off post. I used to keep mine in my truck in the parking lot and had a full reloading bench set up in my room. Would come back from language school in 86', go shoot all afternoon and then reload that night another 2-300 rds on a single stage press.
CD
I wonder if this has been brought to the attention of the General Counsel at OSD?
Since the garrison commander has his own little legal team, they should have sent something like this up the legal chain for a higher level opinion before it was enacted. When you couple the old adage that you can always “add” to a regulation, you just can’t take away from it; with a zero deficit mentality, you get motorcycle riders with bubble-wrap riding suits, battery operated road guard vests, and strobe lights on their helmets. MHO is that there are many garrison bubbas that only care about not having anything major happen on their watch, and as a result enact draconian policies to try to prevent everything bad from happening.
Gun registration for Soldiers that live off-post makes no sense. None. How is it value-added, what is it going to prevent, and what the heck is the purpose? Only thing I come up with that even remotely makes sense is to be able to show…if something happened…that the command did something. There are a couple of things the Army makes so ridiculously hard to do, that I just throw my hands up and say F-it. Riding my bike on post and going to the on-post range are two.
1stindoor
10-04-2010, 06:50
When I got to Bliss we had to fill out the same paperwork...I was a good Soldier and listed one gun...
RichL025
10-04-2010, 09:02
Off post is not under military law. The order is unlawful. ...
Off post IS under military law. It's called the UCMJ.
The only question is whether the duly approved chain-of-command wishes to issue an order like that.
I'm interested if anyone can remember what the regulations were on Ft. Bragg during the 80s. I lived in the 5th Group barracks on Gruber Rd. and saw quite a variety of weapons being kept in wall lockers. Pistols, rifles, shotguns, assualt rifles, muzzle loaders, crossbows, spearguns, blowguns, swords, etc. I was a little more cautious. I kept my firearms locked in a container in a storage facility off post.
While in 2/325 in the early 80's ('79 - '83), we just had to keep them in the arms room while living in the barracks. After moving off base, I don't remember having to worry about it.
coupla points: not everyone in IZ/AFG does get to keep their weapons with the ammo. have you NOT seen the thousands of clips of troops walking around on base with weapons and NO ammo??
Next - it is NOT a lawful order. Carson tried this in the early '90's. Somehow....Rep. Dan Burton got a hold of the proposed reg and asked DA under what basis it was being imposed. The toads responsible for the reg almost burst a vessel trying to figure out "who" "leaked" the reg to Congres; they did kill it however.
The leadership has no right nor "duty-connection" to require me to divulge what weapons I lawfully own and possess off-post. Frankly, it is none of their business. I simply refuse to play that game.
The toads at Hood responsible for this - IF it is true.... - are truly either uneducable or are criminally negligent.
The way to prevent more Major hassan's is to ENSURE that the troops are disarmed...???? Really??
The Reaper
10-04-2010, 11:03
Off post IS under military law. It's called the UCMJ.
The only question is whether the duly approved chain-of-command wishes to issue an order like that.
Try to do a health and welfare check of a set of private quarters off-post.
See if your search is upheld as legal.
TR
The leadership has no right nor "duty-connection" to require me to divulge what weapons I lawfully own and possess off-post. Frankly, it is none of their business. I simply refuse to play that game.
The toads at Hood responsible for this - IF it is true.... - are truly either uneducable or are criminally negligent.
The way to prevent more Major hassan's is to ENSURE that the troops are disarmed...???? Really??
I am with you, Brother. I don't buy into that line that as a Soldier you waive your constitutional rights.
Recent legislation enacted to prevent this very occurrence:
HEN10498 S.L.C.
Committee Amendment Proposed by
Mr. Inhofe
1 At the appropriate place in title X, insert the fol2
lowing:
3 SEC. [HEN10498]. PROHIBITION ON INFRINGING ON THE IN4
DIVIDUAL RIGHT TO LAWFULLY ACQUIRE,
5 POSSESS, OWN, CARRY, AND OTHERWISE USE
6 PRIVATELY OWNED FIREARMS, AMMUNITION,
7 AND OTHER WEAPONS.
8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection
9 (c), the Secretary of Defense may not prohibit, issue any
10 requirement relating to, or collect or record any informa11
tion relating to the otherwise lawful acquisition, posses12
sion, ownership, carrying, or other use of a privately13
owned firearm, privately-owned ammunition, or another
14 privately-owned weapon by a member of the Armed Forces
15 or civilian employee of the Department of Defense on
16 property that is not owned or operated by the Department
17 of Defense.
18 (b) EXISTING REGULATIONS AND RECORDS.—
19 (1) REGULATIONS.—Any regulation promul20
gated before the date of enactment of this Act that
21 requires conduct prohibited by this section is null
22 and void and shall have no force or effect.
2
HEN10498 S.L.C.
1 (2) RECORDS.—Not later than 90 days after
2 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
3 Defense shall destroy any record containing informa4
tion described in subsection (a) that was collected
5 before the date of enactment of this Act.
6 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Subsection (a) shall
7 not be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary
8 of Defense to—
9 (1) regulate the possession, carrying, or other
10 use of a firearm, ammunition, or other weapon by a
11 member of the Armed Forces or civilian employee of
12 the Department of Defense while—
13 (A) engaged in official duties on behalf of
14 the Department of Defense; or
15 (B) wearing the uniform of an Armed
16 Force; or
17 (2) create or maintain records relating to an in18
vestigation, prosecution, or adjudication of an al19
leged violation of law (including regulations) not
20 prohibited under subsection (a).
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
BREAK//BREAK//
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXXX
Gents - do NOT take this stuff lying down. 1) most of this type of tripe on the net is simply false. However, there are some pretty dense anti-gun Commanders out there who are drooling on stripping our citizenry of their rights (as well as soldiers). We need to stay organized and fight this at every turn.
No commander would be able to articulate the rationale for instituting such a rule. Call BS on them and make them defend their positions. Fifth columnists and traitors...the lot of them!!
RichL025
10-04-2010, 12:53
Try to do a health and welfare check of a set of private quarters off-post.
See if your search is upheld as legal.
TR
Actually, I know people that happened to. Back in the later 80s, one of my troops (when I was an E5 I think) - the first sergeant took it upon himself to "inspect" his quarters because of complaints. He didn't find anything "illegal" (and he was inspecting more because it was a supposed rathole the guy was living in).
I have no clue whatsoever about what kind of rules of evidence gathering the military uses, if that's what you're referring to about the search being "legal".
Even if the search was not ruled legal, think you're gonna get your guns back?
The military enforces it's dumber rules all the time off-post. Have you ever seen a list of "off-limits establishments"? I know guys at Bragg in the 90s who were stopped in the parking lots of said establishments and asked for their military ID's.
(*ahem*... it was these friends of mine, you see....)
Basically the plainclothes MPs (jokers) would stop anyone they saw exiting a car with post decals, or with a short haircut. I have no idea how legal that was or not... but they did it anyway!
It defeats the purpose or intent I believe to restrict this policy solely on Active Duty members? Why not have every Guardsman, Reservist, Retiree, and civilian worker that has access to the post register their weapons? I mean, the reason for the registration is to....well, frankly I don't know what registering them would prevent, but at most it might make someone think about bringing a weapon on post with malicious intent. Point being, if they plan on following through, it should be across the board with anyone who has routine access to the post.
I use to frequent Ft Lee and all the naval stations in the tidewater area of VA and was asked at the gate if i had a weapon, i said i did and showed my permit to carry concealed, and all they did was u-turn me and told me to take it home and come back. I went through another gate.
I also was picked for a random search and they looked right over it. Never asked me if I had one, but did their routine check to see and somehow missed it. Intentionally, I don't know.
From the article:
"In this order, battalion commanders were directed to review all privately owned weapons registration. There is not a requirement to register off-post weapons but soldiers are encouraged to do so," Haug said
imho its BS, if the CiC, Clinton and Nap can get the Mil behind this, then disarming the general populace is only a matter of time.
It defeats the purpose or intent I believe to restrict this policy solely on Active Duty members? Why not have every Guardsman, Reservist, Retiree, and civilian worker that has access to the post register their weapons? I mean, the reason for the registration is to....well, frankly I don't know what registering them would prevent, but at most it might make someone think about bringing a weapon on post with malicious intent. Point being, if they plan on following through, it should be across the board with anyone who has routine access to the post.
I use to frequent Ft Lee and all the naval stations in the tidewater area of VA and was asked at the gate if i had a weapon, i said i did and showed my permit to carry concealed, and all they did was u-turn me and told me to take it home and come back. I went through another gate.
I also was picked for a random search and they looked right over it. Never asked me if I had one, but did their routine check to see and somehow missed it. Intentionally, I don't know.
If someone really wants to get a weapon on post for nefarious purposes; they will. As far as going on post with a weapon, I carry one all of the time, being an LEO, and my wife carries her's per CCW. When we go to a gate, we just tell them we have them and why and that we are taking them to the PMO while we are on base. We get a receipt at the PMO and pick them up before we leave. I have had the desk sergeant at one base tell me not to worry about it, just put it where it was secure in the vehicle.
I wouldn't count on the Group experience as a guidline for the 'rules' as we never really enforced them.
I remember going into the 5th Gp barracks as a Team Sgt in 85 prior to an IG (Co SGM told us to get our asses over there) about 0800 and knocking on one of my team guys doors.
A door down a young blonde chick (very cute but disheveled) stuck her head out and asked "What time is it?"....I said 0800 then she said
"What day?"
Sort of dumb to worry about people's deer rifles, and pistols. The army will hand you a Machinegun or 50.cal sniper rifle when you ask for one. Just sign that DA2062 and its yours.
Guard at gate asks Sir you need to step out and open the back of the van so we can see whats in the back. Reply: all that is in the back is Weapons and ammo. Guard looks confused for a min looks at another guard His reply ok you can go threw:eek:... Yes this realy happend.
I wouldn't count on the Group experience as a guidline for the 'rules'
Truer words were never spoken...:D
Animal8526
10-08-2010, 20:29
This thread is timed well...
If any of you gentlemen would be up for helping another soldier out...
The short of it is that I need someone to store my little brother's weapons off post in the Ft. Bragg area. All legally owned up here in NH, and kosher, but he'd like to have access to them down there. Just an AR and a pistol at the moment.
So if any of you QP's are permanent residents of the greater Ft. Bragg area and wouldn't mind a couple of stowaways in the safe, please contact me.
alright4u
10-08-2010, 23:39
Off post IS under military law. It's called the UCMJ.
The only question is whether the duly approved chain-of-command wishes to issue an order like that.
Thanks for reminding me soldiers and all military are under the UCMJ. That does not answer the unlawfull order genious.
Gentlemen,
I've been stationed at Ft Hood since '08. Our new management is trying to change the rules due to the November 5th incident and our spike in suicides.
As it stands, Unit Commanders have been told to create a list of soldiers under their charge that choose not to register their POWs on post. Supposedly, these soldiers will receive extra attention due to the possibility that they are "high risk" i.e. own firearms that their commanders don't know about. Most commands that I've seen are just going through the motions.
We are still instructed that we cannot order anyone to furnish their POWs, store them onpost, or inspect their homes without their permission.
The Reaper
10-09-2010, 10:05
But taking a closer look at the Muslim soldiers (like the ones who actually HAVE killed their fellow Americans, and indicated ahead of time that they intended to) would be profiling, right?
Wouldn't want to have any of that.:rolleyes:
TR
Leozinho
10-09-2010, 10:41
This thread is timed well...
If any of you gentlemen would be up for helping another soldier out...
The short of it is that I need someone to store my little brother's weapons off post in the Ft. Bragg area. All legally owned up here in NH, and kosher, but he'd like to have access to them down there. Just an AR and a pistol at the moment.
So if any of you QP's are permanent residents of the greater Ft. Bragg area and wouldn't mind a couple of stowaways in the safe, please contact me.
Have him take a look at Jim's Gun and Pawn. They rent (or used to rent) lockers to store weapons for those living on post.
Animal8526
10-10-2010, 11:34
Have him take a look at Jim's Gun and Pawn. They rent (or used to rent) lockers to store weapons for those living on post.
I appreciate it. I think he may just end up getting a storage unit down there and buying a locker. We'll see.
Interesting turn of events.
I wonder if this has been brought to the attention of the General Counsel at OSD?
Secondly, NRA members should bring this to the attention of the NRA as they usually correspond rapidly over actions like this.
On our last post, the PMO tried to make all soldiers and civilians register all weapons individually owned. This was brought up the VA State Attorney General, and we quickly stomped in the mud. The PMO's authority ends at the gate. The Garrison CDR has to work with the local and state governments also.
I wonder where the FT Hood authority stops? Seeing as TX law provides an incredible amount of permission for CCW holders, how does that conflict with the FHTX post regulations? Heck, with a TX CCW, you can enter the state capital without going through a metal detector.
Interesting turn o f events.
MT
This was also the case at Ft Carson in 97/98. Post Commander got a friendly visit from the NRA reps, and was requested to rescind his unlawful order or face a lawsuit for infringing on constitutional rights. It's called the 2nd Ammendment.