Professional soldier forbidden full auto.

He doesn't "own" his issue MG either.

Missed that one, eh?

Don't expect much logic from .gov. Since current leadership views us as "potential" domestic terrorists, I'm surprised there isn't pending legislation to deny firearm ownership to veterans.

Owen Sparks ....I just find it kind of odd that a person who the government trusts to sit behind a belt fed machine gun all day every day for six months is prohibited by law from owning a non registered full auto weapon during the two weeks that he is home on leave.

Click to expand...

Uhhh........because even soldiers home on leave have to follow the same laws as everyone else.

aren't Iraqis allowed to own 1 automatic machine gun in their home?

Because someone will take it from him and use it on him.

I just find it kind of odd that a person who the government trusts to sit behind a belt fed machine gun all day every day for six months is prohibited by law from owning a non registered full auto weapon during the two weeks that he is home on leave.

Click to expand...

Whoa, whoa, back up a minute.

Are you suggesting that soldiers should be exempt from civilian firearm laws?

That would create a SERIOUS conflict of interests. If you work for the government, you get special priviledges that we meager peasants don't.

If I can't have it, he can't either.

Once you start giving .gov employees 'perks', they are no longer our equals, they become an elite class.

Just look at congress. Do you really want that kind of gap opening up between the military and the citizenry?

Slippery slope...

Lot of misunderstanding.

First off, he COULD own a full-auto transferrable machine gun, just as could you or I. That's the law of the land, though some states are more restrictive.

Second, just like police officers and federal LEOs, he has a job in which he may be issued an automatic weapon, but he does not own it, can't choose when and where to use it on his own, and can't transport it around on his own without orders.

Third, doing a little research on what the military requires in storage, use, and handling of firearms when not in a combat zone will surprise you a lot more than this. Soldiers are heavily restricted as to when and how they may carry and store NOT just their issued weapons, but their privately owned firearms as well! Far more so than an equivalent civilian of the same age and living in the same town.

Ironic, perhaps, but not surprising.

I just find it kind of odd that a person who the government trusts to sit behind a belt fed machine gun all day every day for six months is prohibited by law from owning a non registered full auto weapon during the two weeks that he is home on leave.

Click to expand...

Forget machine guns. How about a guy that's old enough to have been through two tours in Afghanistan, and when he comes home on leave, he's too "young" for his buddy to take him out for a few beers as a way of saying thanks.

You sign away virtually all of your rights when you join the military. Why is it surprising that someone in the military, who already has fewer rights than civilians, would not be able to own an item that is already not available (without restriction) to civilians?

He should get the paper rolling, go back overseas for work and BAM nice surprise when he gets home lol.

Sam1911 said:

Lot of misunderstanding.

First off, he COULD own a full-auto transferrable machine gun, just as could you or I. That's the law of the land, though some states are more restrictive.

Second, just like police officers and federal LEOs, he has a job in which he may be issued an automatic weapon, but he does not own it, can't choose when and where to use it on his own, and can't transport it around on his own without orders.

Third, doing a little research on what the military requires in storage, use, and handling of firearms when not in a combat zone will surprise you a lot more than this. Soldiers are heavily restricted as to when and how they may carry and store NOT just their issued weapons, but their privately owned firearms as well! Far more so than an equivalent civilian of the same age and living in the same town.

Ironic, perhaps, but not surprising.

Click to expand...

This is a good post. More than having to follow the civilian firearms law, I resent being subjected to even high communist scrutiny while on base with my private weapons. No CCW, no exceptions, all vehicles on base subject to search, and cannot transport firearms except to and from the range. I've spent over three years walking around Iraq with an M16 and lots of ammo. Despite the fact I (and hundreds of thousands of others) shot no other soldiers with that weapon, I can't even have my pistol locked in my trunk in the parking lot at work so I can go to the range later. It's crazy. Commanders think that soldiers with their own weapons are an inherent safety risk. Not sure where those commanders think they are, but we handle firearms for a living. And we have to register all weapons brought on post. AF bases will make you check your weapon at the base arms room for the duration of your stay on base. Id' like to see Congress fix this like they did with the national parks.

Ironic that ...

I do find something ironic here. But not that he wasn't allowed a full auto.

I find it funny that for some reason there's this notion that soldier's are somehow above the law.

I just find it kind of odd that a person who the government trusts to sit behind a belt fed machine gun all day every day for six months is prohibited by law from owning a non registered full auto weapon during the two weeks that he is home on leave.

Click to expand...

Who cares about a boring machine gun..... I'm mad the feds won't let me buy an F-16 (would have to win the lottery) and fly it around when I'm off duty. Would be happy to have the internal gun removed, more room for fuel.... Just free to blast around the skies

I did not think an AR-15 was full auto anymore? In the military you live under probably more than double the rules than in the outside world. YOU can be accountable for what your wife does. So why would they trust anyone with an automatic weapon with out being under direct supervision, or orders? Not that he cant have one, just that the military does not want to be responsible on his time.

Anyone that things that military members have more rights than others, especially when it comes to firearms... You are sadly, sadly mistaken. Especially when it comes to on base. Bring a gun to work on a civilian place of employment, you face a trespassing charge? Guess what happens when you bring it to federal installation?

An oft quoted maxim: "We defend democracy. We don't practice it."

If you have never looked into it, there are freedoms that we support and defend in the Constitution that we don't get to exercise quite so freely as do others.

No one take any of that wrong, it just is what it is.

Dulvarian said:

Anyone that things that military members have more rights than others, especially when it comes to firearms... You are sadly, sadly mistaken. Especially when it comes to on base. Bring a gun to work on a civilian place of employment, you face a trespassing charge? Guess what happens when you bring it to federal installation?

An oft quoted maxim: "We defend democracy. We don't practice it."

If you have never looked into it, there are freedoms that we support and defend in the Constitution that we don't get to exercise quite so freely as do others.

No one take any of that wrong, it just is what it is.

Click to expand...

I've never needed to know, so I can't say all the specifics, but I am sure that in several states it is perfectly legal have a gun in your trunk at work, and in many cases CCW while at work. I don't think the military should have any more rights, just the same as everyone else.

Up here, he'd have to write a test and pass a handling test to own a .22 rifle or pistol. Mind you, how the military uses firearms isn't the same as the way civilians use 'em. How many times have you been told to wait 30 seconds or more for a 'hang fire'. Military IA drill's teach to clear it immediately.
"...too "young" for his buddy to take him out for a few beers..." Yep. Old enough to serve, but not be served.

I just find it kind of odd that a person who the government trusts to sit behind a belt fed machine gun all day every day for six months is prohibited by law from owning a non registered full auto weapon during the two weeks that he is home on leave.

Click to expand...

The original poster could be making one of two points: (a) that everyone should be allowed to own full auto weapons without the need for registration, or (b) that members of the military should be exempted from the laws that apply generally.

I have a serious problem with the second proposition. It sets up the military as an elite class, something the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid, with their aversion to a standing army and their insistence on civilian control (specifying an elected President as C in C).

As for the first proposition, it is arguable, but it's unlikely that we're going to get to relitigate the National Firearms Act of 1934. As a matter of fact, if we simply went back to the regulatory scheme of the original NFA of 1934, it would be an improvement over what we have now.

We can only own pre-1986 class-III weapons. This is unacceptable. The military should be subject to the exact same laws civilians are. When the state creates itself as the supreme controller of force, bad things happen.

Tanks, jets, missiles - if you can own it, then so can I. The history of government is the history of violence; it's the only means of forcing taxation upon any unwilling individual to finance one's "governing."

Remember that only a few generations ago, Lincoln invaded the states of the south to maintain tax revenue. Were a state to peacefully secede, I feel confident that the current president (Republican or Democrat), would react the same.

When I was in the Navy we fired a 5" 54 and carried nuclear asrocs, and I carried a Thompson on boarding details and security that did not give me the right to have or use those weapons while on leave or any other time except in the official scope of my Military duties.Not trying to be being a smart butt, I don't get the point.

Tanks, jets, missiles - if you can own it, then so can I.

Click to expand...

You're right - if you have the cash, you can own all those things as a civilian.

give me a break, he should only be allowed to own what regular civilians can own

The same people who are allowed to own semi auto guns should be allowed to go to a gun store and buy new full auto machine guns without having to jump through hoops.