Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Military Personnel Ordered To Comply With Illegal Private Gun Registration

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lincoln Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    Military Personnel Ordered To Comply With Illegal Private Gun Registration

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet.com
    Tuesday, May 19, 2009

    An alarming document sent to us by an Infantryman based out of Fort Campbell Kentucky shows that active duty military personnel are being secretly ordered to submit information to their Chain of Command on how many firearms they own privately, their location, as well of details of any Concealed Carry permits.

    Though the order was apparently rescinded, the fact that active duty soldiers are being asked to submit every detail of their private firearm collection is a telltale sign that the second amendment is in dire straights. Furthermore, Alex Jones has personally confirmed that such directives are being issued all over the country.

    The directive orders active duty personnel to report details of all privately-owned firearms to their Chain of Command, as well as future firearms purchases.

    The memorandum was sent to us by a concerned 11B Infantryman based at Fort Campbell. In his e mail, the man expresses his shock at being ordered to comply with what amounts to a registration of privately-owned firearms.

    Read the document below.



    “I live off post, with my firearms (which I don’t bring on post for any reason). A very frightening thing happened at work yesterday,” he writes. “I was ordered to fill out a list containing my firearm information. This included make, model, caliber, and serial number of all firearms I currently posses. In addition, I was also required to list registration information, location of all weapons individually, and information regarding any CCW permits I posses.”

    The man tried to ascertain why such information was being demanded by speaking to his First Sergeant but was told, “Just put your info on the form.”

    “I don’t know how high this goes, but I am hearing that this is going on in other units at Fort Campbell as well,” writes the Infantryman. “It just seems a little coincidental to me that within 90 days: the most anti-firearm President in history is inaugurated, some of the nastiest anti-firearm laws are put on the table in Washington, and then the Army comes around wanting what amounts to a registration on all firearms, even if they are off post, and doesn’t provide any reason or purpose as to why.”

    The man said he had been at Fort Campbell for almost 8 years and had never encountered anything like this directive before.

    “I fear something really nasty is blowing in the wind here,” he warns.

    According to a World Net Daily article, the order was stopped when it was discovered the commander was not “acting within his authority.”

    However, Alex Jones has personally confirmed that bases all over the nation, including in Texas, are directing active duty personnel to provide the same information about their private gun collections.

    The story emphasizes how gargantuan threats to the second amendment are not being reported by the mainstream media nor by big gun groups like the NRA.

    A similarly grave threat to the second amendment is the so-called ‘No Fly, No Buy Act’, (H.R. 2401), a bill that will merge the TSA’s no-fly list with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), a point-of-sale system for determining eligibility to purchase a firearm in the United States, Guam, and Puerto Rico.

    Since the Department of Homeland Security now considers veterans, advocates of the Second Amendment, and states’ rights activists as terrorists, the ‘No Fly, No Buy’ act would effectively disarm the majority of the entire country.

    The language of H.R. 2401 reads as follows: “To increase public safety and reduce the threat to domestic security by including persons who may be prevented from boarding an aircraft in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes,” according to the Open Congress website. Govtrack.us reports that the bill was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

    source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/military...istration.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lincoln Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    Why? Why would the US Military need to know who personally, and privately, owns what firearms?

  3. #3
    Regular Member MSC 45ACP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,845

    Post imported post

    I read an article about this on Military.com. It "tells the rest of the story" where the CO's boss told him (or it mayhave been a'her')they had NO AUTHORITY to ask for this information from their soldiers. Personnel living on base are already required to comply with the Base CO's regulations concerning firearms, and for those living offbase, the small-unit CO had NO jurisdiction.

    ==============

    Members of Charlie Company, 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment stationed in Fort Campbell, Ky., received a memo (shown below) dated March 12 asking them to "inform their Chain of Command" of the registration number, whereabouts and concealed carry permit status for all of their privately held weapons.

    WND reported on the incident March 21 in an "exclusive." The story made clear what later retellings did not: The memo never represented Army policy. Even the article's misleading headline said, "Fort Campbell command reversed under pressure." Nothing in the story supports the headline writer's assertion that there was "pressure" to reverse the policy, but even those who read only the headline knew it was no longer in effect at the time the story appeared.

    The WND story quoted a spokeswoman for the base, Cathy Gramling, as saying that the memo came from a single company commander who did not have authority to seek such information. She said the commander issued it while base officials were considering starting a training program for soldiers with privately owned guns because of "a number of negligent discharges of privately owned weapons" :

    WorldNetDaily.com, March 21, 2009: Base spokeswoman Cathy Gramling told WND the letter apparently was a mistake. She said the base requires anyone bringing a privately owned weapon onto the installation to register it. ...

    Gramling said the memo was "from a subordinate unit commander who, at the time, believed he was acting within his authority." She said requiring the information was halted when it was discovered the commander was not within his authority.


    "If I know that I am headed for a fight, I want something larger with more power, preferably crew-served.
    However, like most of us, as I go through my daily life, I carry something a bit more compact, with a lot less power."
    (unknown 'gun~writer')

    Remington 1911 R1 (Back to Basics)
    SERPA retention or concealed...

    "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
    (Borrowed from "The Perfect Day" by LTC Dave Grossman)

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    West Jordan, UT, ,
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    MSC 45ACP wrote:
    I read an article about this on Military.com. It "tells the rest of the story" where the CO's boss told him (or it mayhave been a'her')they had NO AUTHORITY to ask for this information from their soldiers. Personnel living on base are already required to comply with the Base CO's regulations concerning firearms, and for those living offbase, the small-unit CO had NO jurisdiction.

    ==============

    Members of Charlie Company, 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment stationed in Fort Campbell, Ky., received a memo (shown below) dated March 12 asking them to "inform their Chain of Command" of the registration number, whereabouts and concealed carry permit status for all of their privately held weapons.

    WND reported on the incident March 21 in an "exclusive." The story made clear what later retellings did not: The memo never represented Army policy. Even the article's misleading headline said, "Fort Campbell command reversed under pressure." Nothing in the story supports the headline writer's assertion that there was "pressure" to reverse the policy, but even those who read only the headline knew it was no longer in effect at the time the story appeared.

    The WND story quoted a spokeswoman for the base, Cathy Gramling, as saying that the memo came from a single company commander who did not have authority to seek such information. She said the commander issued it while base officials were considering starting a training program for soldiers with privately owned guns because of "a number of negligent discharges of privately owned weapons" :

    WorldNetDaily.com, March 21, 2009: Base spokeswoman Cathy Gramling told WND the letter apparently was a mistake. She said the base requires anyone bringing a privately owned weapon onto the installation to register it. ...

    Gramling said the memo was "from a subordinate unit commander who, at the time, believed he was acting within his authority." She said requiring the information was halted when it was discovered the commander was not within his authority.

    I was sure I'd seen this before and the issue had been put down like a rabid dog.

  5. #5
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    Yes, this has been discussed in another thread.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum65/25006.html

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ottawa, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    31

    Post imported post

    Don't fill out the form.

Posting Permissions

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