This article cites a new "amendment" being proposed to the current NDAA, by a lefty gun-grabber from Connecticut:
U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D). From the article:
"His long-standing track record in advocating for gun control is well-known. Throughout his career, he has sought to abolish the Second Amendment and bankrupt the lawful firearm industry, earning praises and pats on the back from his fellow gun grabbers, both inside and outside of Congress.
However, now he is targeting military gun owners, a move that seems ill advised given that, if it came down to it, the people he’s trying to disarm are the people he would be depending on to use weapons to keep him alive.
Sen. Murphy’s amendment to the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the critical legislation that outlines expenditures for the Department of Defense (DOD) for fiscal year 2024, seeks to impose tighter restrictions on our servicemen and women. The NDAA attracts thousands of amendments every year, but most of them never make it to debate as they are deemed irrelevant or unrelated to defense matters.
From a distance, Murphy’s proposal appears harmless, merely asking the secretary of defense to establish baseline training standards for individuals carrying firearms on duty. These standards encompass marksmanship training, suicide awareness, and safe storage — all of which are already established norms across our armed forces.
Under closer inspection, however, Sen. Murphy’s proposal is obviously taking a hard left turn off the constitutional path. His plan mandates that individuals employed by the Pentagon undergo training before purchasing a firearm for private use. Additionally, anyone possessing a firearm on a military installation would be required to register it with the base commander,
along with keeping the firearm locked at home and storing ammunition separately.
...
The core concern lies in the legislation’s attempt to dictate the storage of firearms, contradicting the principles upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision in D.C. v. Heller. Notably, the court ruled that Washington, D.C., couldn’t ban handguns and, germane to the Murphy amendment, couldn’t dictate how firearms are stored in one’s home.
However, there are broader issues at play.
The proposed amendment goes so far as to mandate the registration of all privately owned firearms with base authorities, even those legally acquired off-base and never taken onto the military installation. 
...
This should raise insuperable constitutional concerns, however. While a base commander holds authority to establish regulations within the confines of the base, their jurisdiction ends at the installation’s front gate.
Without putting too fine a point on it,
Sen. Murphy’s proposal would create a national firearm registry, starting with the inclusion of all gun owners within the military, irrespective of whether they purchased the firearm on base or ever brought it onto the installation. This approach displays a disrespectful degree of federal overreach by leaving law-abiding gun owners subject to unnecessary bureaucratic scrutiny.
...
Murphy’s amendment would grant the secretary of defense the power to collect information on both military and civilian employees of the Department of Defense regarding their lawfully owned firearms or ammunition. The stated purpose is for “injury and mortality prevention,” but there’s no such exemption included in the Second Amendment’s explicit prohibition on the government’s authority to infringe on the people’s natural right to keep and bear arms.
https://thenewamerican.com/ndaa-amen...-the-pentagon/
Linear Mode
