Counting on a pro-gun organization for help? Don't count on it if you're military.

Ok, let me ask a question, and I'll see if I can get an educated answer.

You're a soldier, and you don't live in your own home. You're renting a room at someone's house. The owner of the house owns guns and has them in a safe that you do not have access to. This order comes down the pike. Your commander tells you that it doesn't matter, all privately held guns must be registered if they're located off base in your home/house. The landlord refuses, you tell him that you'll get court martialed, and says he doesn't care.

I know that the US military members have less freedoms than normal, but come on, this can't be correct.

Click to expand...

The commander would most likely direct the soldier to move at the end of his lease. If the commander wanted to be a prick, he'd order the soldier to move immediately regardless of consequences. Most commanders are not pricks.

I'm 14 year active Navy, and and order such as this would be so widely ignored, no unit commander would issue it.
What I have in my off base private domicile is none of my unit's business. All the unit needs to know is that I have one, what my recall is.

The commander would most likely direct the soldier to move at the end of his lease. If the commander wanted to be a prick, he'd order the soldier to move immediately regardless of consequences. Most commanders are not pricks.

Click to expand...

And when he gets the bill for violating the lease by terminating early for two months rent, who's responsible for that?

Most leases have a military clause in them that allows the service member to move W/out a penalty under orders

Not the leases I've seen, and the few leases I've seen that has an "out" clause in it requires that it be for deployment to other locations or overseas, not just because your CO has a problem with a room name not wanting their guns registered in a US military database. If the CO willing to spend the US military's money (which, btw, is money that we pay as taxes) to buy out the lease and pay all of the penalties, then I don't personally have an issue at least liberties wise.

That CO is likely going to have to explain to his superiors why he spent money for it. Also, leaving a soldier to pay for the bill, when it was because the CO is attempting to be some kind of social worker (he should leave that to the real social workers, honestly), that's so unbelievably abusive that it cannot stand. I cannot for a moment believe that would be a lawful order, or a lawful thing to do. It's the CO's choice to try to register guns. It's the CO's choice to require someone to move out of their home, lease or no, and then try to stick the soldier with the bill for his own orders consequences. As far as I'm concerned, the CO should be stripped of his rank if he takes it that far and tries to stick a soldier with that bill that he caused.

Not the leases I've seen, and the few leases I've seen that has an "out" clause in it requires that it be for deployment to other locations or overseas, not just because your CO has a problem with a room name not wanting their guns registered in a US military database. If the CO willing to spend the US military's money (which, btw, is money that we pay as taxes) to buy out the lease and pay all of the penalties, then I don't personally have an issue at least liberties wise.

Click to expand...

I always make sure I get a military clause in my leases - one that covers any order. A military member that doesn't is a fool .

The likelihood of a CO doing this is incredibly low - almost any CO would let the member serve out his lease. If the CO for some reason didn't, though, he would have no means whatsoever to reimburse it.

This does not surprise me. I don't think it is the commands business what weapons I own if they are not on post but they can take words and from the dictionary, combine a few of them and make it sound like a good reason on paper.

I was on active duty for 7 years and was an NCO. That was a few years back. The military has changed allot and is the reason I ETS'ed. I would be retired now.

One thing is that a person in the military has less rights then civilians do or less freedoms. I fully understand allot of things that went on that POed allot of guys. In this case I can understand and I wouldn't consider a man threw his integrity out the window when he denied that he had weapons off post. I probably would have put them in storage but with easy access but I can see where that would be a hard option for some guys.

From the policy letter

In some situations, the unknown presence of a potentially lethal weapon at
the residence represents a significant safety threat to the leader responding.

Click to expand...

So they can stack on the door instead of knocking?
"Potentially lethal" ????? Shoot, everything is a potentially lethal weapon. Especially those level three combatives guys.

rugerlvr said

The military is not a democracy.

Click to expand...

Nor is it a dictatorship

I am surprised the affected soldier's relatives haven't already contacted thier Congressman to get answers. They do pay taxes and vote so they get answers PDQ.

Here is an interesting story:

I had a roomate when I was in Aircrew school. It was around Christmas and the roomate's leave papers got misplaced. He was told on Thursday afternoon that he would have to wait until Monday because everyone had left for the three day weekend already. He actually wasn't that upset but did have to change around some tickets. When he called his mother to tell her he wasn't able to get home until the following week she was a little upset but hey this was the military and life was not ending.

Friday morning we were in our room watching the tube when a knock came on the door. We answered it and wouldn't you know it but the Captain of NAS Pensacola was standing in front of us. Holy crap what did we do? The tv wasn't that loud was it. Well it seems he was there to pick up my roomate and escort him to the airport so he could start his Christmas leave. The Captain even had the signed leave chit in his hand. I am sure there was an admin officer searching all night for that one.

When he came back we found out what happened. When he called his mother she just happened to be having lunch with her old school friend (I can't remember the name) Congressman so and so. He asked what had happened and after she told him he made a phone call.

Well Admirals do not like getting phone calls from Congressman and Captains do not like getting calls from Admirals. That ball rolled all the way down to the CO who was told to "handle that".

I am so glad I got to witness that.

If you intend to challenge this, make sure you have all of your ducks in a row. Staple the supreme court decision U.S. v. Haynes (1968) and every relevant army regulation, mark "i refuse to answer under the fifth amendment on the grounds that it may incriminate me", have jag look over it, and be prepared for the ride of your life.
Be prepared to take it to trial by courts martial. Be prepared to lose, cause it may happen.

Pass your PT test, tape test, and Weapons Qualification. Not just barely, but 250 and 36+. Looking like a fat slacker will not help you at all particularly in front of a court martial jury who has never met you before and only has these things to go off of.

Good Luck. -Jdude

One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Click to expand...

MLK

In ST 1-2.96.4, Thomas Aquinas argues that laws bind the conscience, i.e., obligate, when and only when they conform to the eternal law, particularly insofar as the eternal law is exhibited in the universal principles of practical reason (a.k.a. natural law). To be just, a law must be good as to:

(1) its end: it must be ordered to the common good;
(2) its author: it must not exceed the jurisdiction of the one who imposes it;
(3) its form: it must not place disproportionate burdens on any of the subjects involved.

A law, however, that is unjust in any of these ways does not impose any obligation. That is, a law ceases to have binding force if any of these is true:

(1) it is not ordered to the common good, but merely to the private good of those who impose it;
(2) it exceeds the authority of those who impose it;
(3) it places disproportionate burdens on any of the people in the community.

An act that does any of these things is, says Aquinas, more like an act of violence than like a law; it may share some features of a just law, but it is not a law in precisely the same sense. Thus Aquinas favorably quotes Augustine as saying that it seems that an unjust law is no law at all. The only way in which an unjust law may obligate is indirectly, namely, when it is clear that disobeying it would lead to evils worse than obeying it.

Click to expand...

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2096.htm#article4

The military is not a democracy.

Click to expand...

Yep. Forget about having any "rights" when you are subject to the UCMJ.

The commander would most likely direct the soldier to move at the end of his lease. If the commander wanted to be a prick, he'd order the soldier to move immediately regardless of consequences. Most commanders are not pricks.

Click to expand...

Most of the ones I served under, were.

The reg does not require them to be registered if they are not located within your off-post home. If kept in storage or the home of another, they are not implicated by that reg. Just pointing this out, for better or worse.

IZinterrogator said:

The installation commander is not issuing this order, a colonel is.

Click to expand...

The installation commander on Ft. Stewart is a full colonel. Are you dealing with someone of another rank at Hood?

IZ is correct.

The Fort Stewart Installation Commander is a MG / 3 ID's Commanding General.

The Garrison Commander is a COL.

I did not read all of the posts in this thread, but I do want to point out a few misconceptions, especially the big one:

A military officer has no authority over civilians located and living off base. The CO of a facility cannot order a civilian married or living with someone under his command to register squat. He cannot punish a service member for refusing to violate the constitution. If a service member lives with someone (even his spouse) who owns a firearm, and the owner does not want to register it, it is within that civilian's constitutional rights to refuse to do so. While the debate can continue on just what rights a person has and does not have when they join the military, no one can claim that you lose constitutional protections merely by living with or being married to someone in the military.

An officer who orders a service member to register a weapon that does not belong to him, against the wishes of the owner of the weapon, is ordering the service member to violate the gun owner's 4th Amendment rights. Such an order is unlawful.

Divemedic is absolutely correct.

Hey, guys!

This thread is almost a year old.
GAgunCrew: With all due respect, may I ask why your 1st post resurrects such an old thread?

It is reasonable to assume this has since been resolved. Does anyone know how this all turned out for IZinterrogator?

Just curious...

Poper

Thank goodness I'm a Marine

Thank goodness I'm retired. I suspect I would be in the stockade real fast.

Argghhh...

If somebody wants to PM or email IZInterrogator? And let him start a new thread?