2A rights of servicemembers

[mljdeckard]

I have wrestled with this one for a long time, going in and out of the military. I had a conversation with a classmate the other day, who is a Major and very pro 2A. However, when it comes to the soldiers under his command having access to privately owned weapons, he is opposed to it. A little digging revealed he is split on the isse, he supports soldiers living in private housing having access to guns, but not single soldiers living in the barracks.

The reasoning is obvious. The barracks is the army's house, not your house, and the army makes the rules. Young single soldiers, a long weekend, and enough Budweiser inevitably leads to tragedy. So I got him to concede that when you join the military, your rights are defined by your command, if not lost entirely. It should be clearly stated as such.

My question is, will a favorable ruling from Heller change this at all? Will the military really keep the position that even though one has a right to keep and bear arms, this doesn't apply to soldiers or citizens who work or live on a military post?

 

[kingpin008]

It's been said over and over again. The decision in Heller will have a much smaller scope than most people seem to realize. It will affect the situation in D.C., and that's basically it.

What it will do, is set a precedent for other cases to build upon. That's why there won't be any huge sea change in gun laws overnight in the nation - because Heller isn't about that. Depending on the outcome, change will come, but only as more cases are filed and Heller is referenced to help them move through the system.

So long story short - it's almost impossible to say what the outcome of future cases would be. Heller most likely will be an asset to us in these future cases, but until we know how it comes out, we have no way to know how future cases might come out.

 

[jnyork]

The military is not a democracy, it is a total dictatorship. They make up the rules based on what is good for the service and good for the country, not what is good for the individual. When you enlist, you give up quite a few personal liberties, not the least of which are the right to live where you want to, quit the job when you want to, call the boss an SOB when you want to, etc. You have no right to a 40 hour week or any such union nonsense. You have no right to wear what you want to at work, or to wear your uniform when participating in political functions. Among these rights you give up is having your guns in your wall locker in your barracks room. Having served over 20 years in uniform, 13 of which I lived in barracks, I can say without resevation that I totally agree with that policy. Too many youngsters, and not so youngsters, drinking too much and raising too much hell in the barracks. I would be very uneasy living with any other situation.

 

[coloradokevin]

Pretty much what both of the two prior posters said.

You give up many of your rights when you join the military, and the RKBA is just one small aspect of that (hell, to some degree the soldiers even have their health care dictated to them).

Also, Heller is not the be-all-and-end-all gun rights decision that some folks seem to believe it is.

Initially it will decide the question in DC. It may very well set a precedence that requires decades of additional court cases before a nationwide effect is felt (in either direction).

 

[yokel]

It’s always a crap shoot when the Supreme Court takes up interpretation of a Constitutional amendment.

Perhaps, this time, they'll get it right. Or perhaps not.

I would venture to guess that our troops fight principally to protect their comrades from the enemy, to stay alive and see their families.

Loftier concerns such fighting for our Second Amendment freedoms is probably rather low on the totem pole of motivations to brave the rigors of combat.

 

[csmkersh]

The mililtary's view on guns in the barracks has changed over the last 70 years. While privately owned guns were frowned up, pre-WWII it wasn't all that unusual for some posts in the South West to have issue rifles in the barracks.

Back in the late 1980s early 90's, there was a dirrective put out at Ft Hood that all personally owned firearms be registered with the Provost Marshal including those owned by soldiers living of base and in non-government housing. Times change.

​

 

[IA_farmboy]

I don't think that Heller will change any thing in allowing personal arms on military bases.

The military is a special case in many areas of law. They have their own rules, laws, police, and courts because of the unique place they hold in society. Soldiers act on the behalf of the nation in many ways and a fubar moment by one can make for some headaches up and down the chain. (One example having made the news lately. Note to self: be very careful about choices of targets on the firing range.)

There is one big reason I can think of for restricting use of personal arms by those under your command, the Geneva Convention. We, as a nation, agreed with a number of other nations on the rules of battle. We must be very aware of those rules at all times.

When it comes down to what is kept in the barracks I'll have to agree with many in this thread, it's Uncle Sam's house and you are a guest in his house and you are going to be bound by those rules that Uncle Sam sets. Move off base if the rules do not suit you. I hear Uncle Sam will even pay part of your rent.

 

[ColinthePilot]

My dad explained it to me years ago, before I got my commission. Those of us in the military volunteer to give up certain rights in order to provide the rest of the citizens of the US with those rights. F'rinstance, military members are not permitted to protest, even peaceably, in uniform. Anyone else can protest in whatever clothes they like, but military members give up that right while on duty. We are also not permitted to keep firearms in our possession on base; they must be kept in the armory. Their house, their rules. I accept these rules, and choose to live off base as soon as this tour is up (less than two weeks), and all my guns live with a trusted friend off base.

 

[aomagrat]

In my 20 years in the navy, the only time I was able to have my firearms with me was when I lived off base. Not allowed in the barracks, not allowed onboard ship. I even asked if I could keep them in the armory, no dice. The navy fears an armed enlisted man more than an antebellum plantation owner feared an armed slave.

 

[mljdeckard]

I never said anything about overnight.

I just want commands to be more clear about saying definitively that servicemembers don't have the same rights as citizens.

 

[peyton]

nope, no guns allowed, you forgot that some military personnel are willing to sacrifice their rights to protect our country. I thought it was insane to make us register our firearms when we lived on post. The other edge of the knife was you could not bring them on post unless they were registered. It did not take long to learn as a private that someone else controlled your life for the length of your enlistment.

 

[dogmush]

I just want commands to be more clear about saying definitively that servicemembers don't have the same rights as citizens.

All my commands have been right up front about that since the day I hit Basic. Servicemembers give up some of our rights to protect civilians rights. I make sure my soldiers understand that first if any questions about the Bill of Rights come up.

 

[rc135]

Very Limited

I'm on a National Guard mission on the US southwest border, working with the US Border Patrol. Even tho we are staying in hotels and apartments, off base, we are not allowed to possess "a weapon of any kind." Supposedly that includes knives, bats, firearms -- whatever. Since the Fed (Uncle Sugar) is paying for our quarters, they (in this case, the senior General in Sacramento) apparently do have the right to issue suck diktats.

My concern is that there is such a blanket prohibition of weapons (again, any weapon). Not much we can do...I can't even go to a firing range, unless I want to rent one every time I go.

 

[Killermonkey21]

2A Rights...

What are those?

I have to be counseled before I can get a CCW, or buy a Firearm.

I understand, and agree with, the policy of no weapons in the barracks. Too much alcohol to be conducive.

But, apparently Uncle Sam, or at least the officers appointed by them, can do more than govern your firearms usage on base:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/7053

I joined to serve, and I accepted the restrictions that came with it. Its when a "lawful order" is as ambiguous and broad as this that it grinds on nerves.

My belief is that if I pay for a house out of pocket (not with government BAH) that Uncle Sam has no right to interfere with that. Do my beliefs matter? Not one bit. And thats the hardest part of service. Realizing that your beliefs don't make a lick of difference.

There was a thread recently in Legal, I think of a Navy Petty Officer basically being told he "shouldn't" carry at ALL. OC or CC. Because of "how it would reflect on the Navy". My command hasn't gone that far, but it all depends on who you have to listen to, I guess.

Carry on.

 

[johnsonrlp]

The USARAK commander has reposed special distrust and lack of confidence in the patriotism, valor, fidelity and professional excellence of all USARAK troops.

In view of these qualities and their demonstrated leadership potential and dedicated service to the U.S. Army, they are, therefore, prohibited from carrying concealed weapons.

 

[jrfoxx]

My question is, will a favorable ruling from Heller change this at all? Will the military really keep the position that even though one has a right to keep and bear arms, this doesn't apply to soldiers or citizens who work or live on a military post?

Heller will change nothing as far as the military, even in our wildest dream ruling.The military puts a LOT of restrictions on many rights for those in the military.Always have, always will.I cant imagine that evre changing much, if at all.The fact is that those who risk thier lives to defend all of our rights and freedom, have to give up a fair bit of thier own in order to do it.Quite the irony, isnt it? I knwew that when I joined the Navy, and saw it regularly in my 5 years. It should be no surprise to anyone in the militray who can read, and pays attention. We all know it, and we were/are all willing to make that sacrefice.If you think and pay attention, you begin to quickly see why its that way to.The military is a different world, and cannot operate as a democracy. It would just be a nightmare, and the military would be unable to perform if that were the case.just the way it is.

 

[Kalashnikov]

As far as the Heller decision goes, no it won't affect the federal governments rules on federal property. Now as for personal firearms on military installations its easy enough to keep them there if you're single and live in the barracks. On Camp Lejeune you can keep them in an armory provided they're registered with PMO (provost marshal). You can even go to the rifle range at stone bay and use them on the weekends. But that being said I would NEVER do it. I don't trust one of our armorers with my guns.

 

[Sato Ord]

Will the military really keep the position that even though one has a right to keep and bear arms, this doesn't apply to soldiers or citizens who work or live on a military post?

Who said you were entitled to your constitutional rights while on active duty. When you sign that paper and then take that oath, you agree to put your constitutional rights on hold and be under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

The military wouldn't work very well if all soldiers had complete individual constitutional rights.

The same thing happens when you work for the military. Ever stop and read the signs at the gate that say all person proceeding beyond this point are subject to UCMJ?