Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Fort Hood soldiers told to list private weapons

  1. #1
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803

    Fort Hood soldiers told to list private weapons

    Last edited by 45acpForMe; 09-30-2010 at 12:36 PM.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Yep. That'll fix the problem.

  3. #3
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    As long as the soldier is not living in on-post housing, that is an illegal order and one which I would not obey (I didn't when I was still AD).

    What worries me is the number of recent suicides they've had there not to mention the number Army-wide of those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sounds to me like these soldiers are not getting the support and counseling from their chain, starting with the noncoms and going up the ladder.

    I used to sit down at least once a week with my soldiers and listen to what they had to say. A lot of times, potential problems came up that could be corrected before they became major problems. This does not seem to be happening nowadays.

  4. #4
    Regular Member flagellum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    North Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    385
    This is particualry relvant for me, as I just got finished with an "Active Shooter" briefing. The solution?

    Run Away.

    Hide.

    Give in to all demands.

    I'm almost ashamed to be in the military right now.
    "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
    -- Charles A. Beard
    XD(m) 9mm

  5. #5
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461
    Quote Originally Posted by flagellum View Post
    This is particualry relvant for me, as I just got finished with an "Active Shooter" briefing. The solution?

    Run Away.

    Hide.

    Give in to all demands.

    I'm almost ashamed to be in the military right now.

    That is the official advice from the military?

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037
    The Army has already provided perfectly good advice on how to handle sudden incoming fire that's worked quite well for some time. They should stick to it here as well.


    1. Near ambush.
    a. Soldiers in the kill zone immediately return fire, take up covered positions, and throw fragmentation grenades or concussion and smoke grenades. Immediately after the grenades detonate, soldiers in the kill zone assault through the ambush using fire and movement.
    b. Soldiers not in the kill zone locate and place suppressive fire on the enemy, take up covered positions and shift fire as the assault begins.

    2. Far ambush:
    a. Soldiers in the kill zone immediately return fire and take up covered positions. The leader identifies the enemy's location and soldiers place accurate suppressive fire on the enemy's position.
    b. Soldiers not in the kill zone begin fire and movement to destroy the enemy.
    c. The unit moves out of the kill zone, forces the enemy to withdraw, or destroys the ambush.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    As long as the soldier is not living in on-post housing, that is an illegal order and one which I would not obey (I didn't when I was still AD).
    Would you please cite the authority upon which you base this statement.

    I'm nowhere near up to proper speed on military law, but in general terms the base CO can place one heck of a lot of restrictions and demands of the soldiers that live off base. The base CO may not be able to impose his demands on the civillian dependants of the military member, but can bring a whole lot of influence to bear in "encouraging" them to comply.

    That the military chooses not to meddle and intervene in all the "off-duty" activities of the military member does not mean they cannot. It's been done before and probably will be done again, and the courts will again say the military violated no law, statute, regulation, or rule.

    That all being said, the Ft. Hood CG might be very surprised to discover that none of his soldiers, or any other service members temporarily assigned to or visiting the base, own any firearms. None. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.

    Like G. Gordon Liddy, who owns no firearms.

    stay safe.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Would you please cite the authority upon which you base this statement.

    I'm nowhere near up to proper speed on military law, but in general terms the base CO can place one heck of a lot of restrictions and demands of the soldiers that live off base. The base CO may not be able to impose his demands on the civillian dependants of the military member, but can bring a whole lot of influence to bear in "encouraging" them to comply.

    That the military chooses not to meddle and intervene in all the "off-duty" activities of the military member does not mean they cannot. It's been done before and probably will be done again, and the courts will again say the military violated no law, statute, regulation, or rule.

    That all being said, the Ft. Hood CG might be very surprised to discover that none of his soldiers, or any other service members temporarily assigned to or visiting the base, own any firearms. None. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.

    Like G. Gordon Liddy, who owns no firearms.

    stay safe.
    When I was in the AF, many regulations affected my off-base behavior. I, too, would be curious to see a legal foundation for a claim that an order regarding my keeping of weapons off-base would be unlawful.

    That being said, I think that all armed forces personnel, unless they are deemed unfit, should be able to carry on-base and off-.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    As long as the soldier is not living in on-post housing, that is an illegal order and one which I would not obey (I didn't when I was still AD).

    What worries me is the number of recent suicides they've had there not to mention the number Army-wide of those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sounds to me like these soldiers are not getting the support and counseling from their chain, starting with the noncoms and going up the ladder.

    I used to sit down at least once a week with my soldiers and listen to what they had to say. A lot of times, potential problems came up that could be corrected before they became major problems. This does not seem to be happening nowadays.
    It's not just the Army. The Air Force has the same problem, smaller scale, but we have fewer deployed.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim675 View Post
    The Army has already provided perfectly good advice on how to handle sudden incoming fire that's worked quite well for some time. They should stick to it here as well.


    1. Near ambush.
    a. Soldiers in the kill zone immediately return fire, take up covered positions, and throw fragmentation grenades or concussion and smoke grenades. Immediately after the grenades detonate, soldiers in the kill zone assault through the ambush using fire and movement.
    b. Soldiers not in the kill zone locate and place suppressive fire on the enemy, take up covered positions and shift fire as the assault begins.

    2. Far ambush:
    a. Soldiers in the kill zone immediately return fire and take up covered positions. The leader identifies the enemy's location and soldiers place accurate suppressive fire on the enemy's position.
    b. Soldiers not in the kill zone begin fire and movement to destroy the enemy.
    c. The unit moves out of the kill zone, forces the enemy to withdraw, or destroys the ambush.
    Or call in an airstrike...sorry, had to say it...Air Force Aviator.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    When I was in the AF, many regulations affected my off-base behavior. I, too, would be curious to see a legal foundation for a claim that an order regarding my keeping of weapons off-base would be unlawful.

    That being said, I think that all armed forces personnel, unless they are deemed unfit, should be able to carry on-base and off-.
    If they're unfit, discharge them. Interesting point as to whether that order would be unlawful (not illegal. An illegal order has the duty to disobey; unlawful the right to disregard. Major distinction.) I would guess it would be lawful under general health and welfare of the Wing, post, regiment, whichever. Banning the ownership is clearly unlawful on its face. Knowledge of possession, not so sure. Asking for serial numbers I would say is unlawful; maybe even a list. But just whether or not the member possesses, probably would fly.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    If they're unfit, discharge them. Interesting point as to whether that order would be unlawful (not illegal. An illegal order has the duty to disobey; unlawful the right to disregard. Major distinction.) I would guess it would be lawful under general health and welfare of the Wing, post, regiment, whichever. Banning the ownership is clearly unlawful on its face. Knowledge of possession, not so sure. Asking for serial numbers I would say is unlawful; maybe even a list. But just whether or not the member possesses, probably would fly.
    Unfit could mean anything from not yet trained to undergoing treatment to being up on charges and a host of other reasons that the military might say, for the moment, one is not fit to carry. I agree that, if the situation is not eventually correctable, thereby allowing continued service, then not being able to carry is a reason to discharge.

  13. #13
    Activist Member golddigger14s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,990

    Ar 190-11

    Actually Army Regulation 190-11 does cover registration of personally owned weapons. However on March 11th 2010 our base commander here at Fort lewis, WA singed a new post policy that states people who live off base are no longer required to register their weapons. Here is the catch: I like to shoot at the base rifle range, and to get there I have to travel through post. The place where you register weapons says I don't have to register, but the MP's state that since I'm coming on post I have to register them. So I'm still working on getting a final answer. Also when off post and in civilian attire I OC almost all the time, and my commanders know this.
    Last edited by golddigger14s; 09-30-2010 at 07:51 PM.
    "The beauty of the Second Amenment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson
    "Evil often triumphs, but never conquers." Joseph Roux
    http://nwfood.shelfreliance.com

  14. #14
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    To clarify my statement above; I probably mispoke when I said "illegal" as I cannot cite to authority. However, I had a battalion commander put out an order that any servicemember who owned a firearm had to register it and turn it in to the arms room for safekeeping. Yes, this was CONUS. Yes, he also meant off post personnel.

    I did not obey that order and I knew several others who did not. In fact, I really don't know anyone living offpost back then who was stupid enough to obey it.

    Since the place where I was living was my wife's, they had no grounds to come "inspect" my quarters as one commander threatened to do. I let him know that he would be, if he was lucky, a guest of the county sheriff if he tried it. I say, "if he was lucky", because my late wife was one helluva shot! She didn't cotton to strangers coming on to her property either, unless they had a darn good reason to be there.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by golddigger14s View Post
    Actually Army Regulation 190-11 does cover registration of personally owned weapons. However on March 11th 2010 our base commander here at Fort lewis, WA singed a new post policy that states people who live off base are no longer required to register their weapons. Here is the catch: I like to shoot at the base rifle range, and to get there I have to travel through post. The place where you register weapons says I don't have to register, but the MP's state that since I'm coming on post I have to register them. So I'm still working on getting a final answer. Also when off post and in civilian attire I OC almost all the time, and my commanders know this.
    That begs the question: from where, does the Army obtain the grant of authority to make such a regulation?

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    That begs the question: from where, does the Army obtain the grant of authority to make such a regulation?
    Too lazy to actually look up the law passed by Congress in 177x authorizing the raising of an army, which included granting the authority to make orders for regulating the army. Since then the original law has been amended and revised, and probably even rescinded and reissued several times over. COTUS contains the authority for Congress to have passed the law authorizing the raising of an army.

    Seriously, did you actually expect that the army was going to be bound by the same rules that are applied against common folks? As every person who has entered military service learned within the first 24 hours, you lose many rights and privileges when you agree to protect those rights and privileges with your life. Sure made me appreciate them more when I regained them after fulfilling my service obligation.

    stay safe.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I would agree with you except on one point: When we enter the service, by so doing, we voluntarily submit to the orders of the officers appointed over us. So, in essence, we don't lose our rights, we voluntarily suspend some of them for the duration of our commitment.

    That being said, I found that the military protected my rights far better than the civilian system ever did...well, except for that pesky 2A thingy.

  18. #18
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711
    One way to approach this information demand is to analyze the Privacy Act Notice, if any, and take it to JAG for review prior to providing the requested information - proper legal advice from JAG might be useful to all involved.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    The authority to raise and regulate an army are one thing. The authority to take away all of a citizen's rights, regardless of their membership in the army, is another authority that I've not seen given. Hence, why I'm curious if anyone knows of such a grant of authority and from whence it comes.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Even in the days of our Founders, members of the military fell under the authority of the officers appointed over them, whose orders could remove those rights that our Founders held most dear: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. How much less important would our gun rights be?

    The way to attack this issue is not as a rights issue, but as a common sense policy issue. How many people would've died had the policy at Fort Hood allowed service members to carry? Clearly the wisest policy would be to allow all service members, not otherwise unfit, to carry on base and provide training as necessary.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Just my opinion, but WND is about as reliable as the NYT. I can't just buy the story as it's written. Not that I have any doubts that it did happen. I just don't think WND is %100 credible.

    As far as guns on post go, I had to deal with the inane restrictions on FT Hood a while back. It's disappointing to see that they're at least as stupid now if not more so. We stayed in the old 1st Cav barracks while they were deployed and we were doing the train-up. The commander of that 1st Cav unit had a memorandum posted in the supply room outside the vault that all weapons would be registered and stored in the CO arms room regardless if the soldier lived on or off post IIRC.

    I didn't bother asking about our own commander's policy, and I know that no one had any weapons stored there. I forgot to take out my hunting rifle coming back from leave one weekend, and had to drive all the way back home to drop it off after getting a random stop at the CC gate. It was either that or get it registered, so I just took the ass-chewing for being late to formation. I have a feeling our commanders all the way up the chain thought these rules were stupid, because there never was a policy put out that I can remember.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    Since the place where I was living was my wife's, they had no grounds to come "inspect" my quarters as one commander threatened to do. I let him know that he would be, if he was lucky, a guest of the county sheriff if he tried it. I say, "if he was lucky", because my late wife was one helluva shot! She didn't cotton to strangers coming on to her property either, unless they had a darn good reason to be there.
    Your commander can conduct a health & welfare inspection of anywhere you live. He obviously can't force compliance on property owned by a civilian, but he can revoke your privilege to live off post in private housing. The county sheriff can protect your wife's property, but he won't do you a bit of good when you're living in the barracks or NCOQ.

    BT,DT.

  23. #23
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    Soooooooo nice to be retired now

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Even in the days of our Founders, members of the military fell under the authority of the officers appointed over them, whose orders could remove those rights that our Founders held most dear: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. How much less important would our gun rights be?

    The way to attack this issue is not as a rights issue, but as a common sense policy issue. How many people would've died had the policy at Fort Hood allowed service members to carry? Clearly the wisest policy would be to allow all service members, not otherwise unfit, to carry on base and provide training as necessary.
    So everyone just assumes that if the Army says they have the authority to do something that it must be true? Noone knows if they actually have authority to do as they please? I don't care personally one way or the other since I'll join an organization such as the federal army, but I am curious and hopeful that someone would know where the grant of authority comes from. (note: not the grant of existence but the grant to take away any right at any time of members of the army)

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    No. The explanation of where the authority comes from has been provided earlier in this thread.

    They don't have every authority, but they do have any authority given them by Congress and the president--which is danged near absolute, as is necessary in an armed force.
    Last edited by eye95; 10-01-2010 at 07:56 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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