-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Fort Hood soldiers told to list private weapons
- Thread starter 45acpForMe
- Start date
eye95
Well-known member
Yep. That'll fix the problem.
SFCRetired
Regular Member
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.
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.
flagellum
Regular Member
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.
Run Away.
Hide.
Give in to all demands.
I'm almost ashamed to be in the military right now.
buster81
Regular Member
Jim675
Founder's Club Member
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.
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.
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.
eye95
Well-known member
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-.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
It's not just the Army. The Air Force has the same problem, smaller scale, but we have fewer deployed.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
Or call in an airstrike...sorry, had to say it...Air Force Aviator.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
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.
eye95
Well-known member
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.
golddigger14s
Activist Member
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.
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:
SFCRetired
Regular Member
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.
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.
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.
eye95
Well-known member
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.
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.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
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.
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.
eye95
Well-known member
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.
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.