Even if you live off post.

[mojaveman]

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]

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

[Don]

Originally Posted by Angry Mike

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]

When I got to Bliss we had to fill out the same paperwork...I was a good Soldier and listed one gun...

[RichL025]

Originally Posted by alright4u

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.

[rdret1]

Originally Posted by mojaveman

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.

[JimP]

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]

Originally Posted by RichL025

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

[Don]

Originally Posted by JimP

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.

[JimP]

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]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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!

[stickey]

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.

[Penn]

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.

[rdret1]

Originally Posted by stickey

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.

[PRB]

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?"