IZinterrogator
Member
Various units in the United States Army have recently put into effect policies requiring all gun owners in those units to register personally-owned weapons kept on their property with their units, regardless of whether or not those guns are kept on or off post. In the past, weapons kept on post or brought onto post ranges had to be registered with the Provost Marshal. Seeing as these weapons are being kept on or being brought onto federal property, that's just a hoop that a gun owner who puts himself in that position has to deal with. When I was living on post years ago in the barracks, I kept my guns off post, which gave me the choice to register or not and I chose not to. Now that choice has been taken away, even though I live off-post. NRA said they had received a lot of traffic on these types of policies from Hood and Bragg. And as all Soldiers know, as go Hood and Bragg, so goes the Army.
Here's the real kicker:
Every member of my old unit was forced to write a sworn statement stating whether or not they had firearms on their property when it looked like the unit registration requirement was being ignored. I'll admit, the gun owners in my battalion all knew who had guns and who didn't and the requirement was being ignored while we sought assistance from outside groups. A couple of Soldiers who had only one or two guns and were relatively high-ranking gave up their information as cover for the rest of us while we contacted pro-gun rights organizations. Once we had to make the sworn statements, we were screwed. My company commander didn't even think what they were doing was legal. The fact that the brigade, battalion, or company commander could order us to turn in our weapons for "safekeeping" at their whim did not sit well with anyone. The basis for their decision to force us to register was, of course, Soldier safety. The brigade policy letter stated that it was to protect the leadership from disgruntled troops if they had to intervene in an off-post situation at the Soldier's home, the battalion commander said it was to protect Soldiers with mental issues from themselves. Basically, if you are being a problem, the commander can take your guns.
It was back in May when the policy was put into effect. I would have posted this sooner, but I was still a member of the unit. Now I'm not, so I have no problem with my thoughts on the policy being known. Anyways, several of us contacted the NRA-ILA. I'm a life member of the NRA, so I figured I could get some support. Their response was that since Heller was about a person trying to win the right to register a gun, they had to support registration. They also thought that the commander had the authority to force registration, so they didn't see the need to intervene. NRA did say they opposed registration as a political position, but that it was not their legal position in the Heller case. In addition to that, they said that they had received the same complaint from numerous Soldiers belonging to various units at other Army posts all over the country that week, so it wasn't just one brigade commander acting on his own. So the NRA-ILA was of no help. I contacted the GOA, of which I am also a life member. Their public liaison said they were against registration and that he would forward the info to his supervisor. I begged them to make the policy public so the weight of public opinion could be brought to bear against the Congress, who could do something about this. Nothing happened, no press release, no mention on their website, nothing. All I got was the public liaison lamenting that it wasn't the same Army he had served in back in the 1960s. So I contacted SAF, which I am also a life member of. They didn't even respond to my e-mail. I contacted the NRA and the GOA again today since we are now in a post-Heller kind of world. No response from the NRA yet, but the GOA still does not seem to think this is an issue, even with the registration of other people's weapons requirement. So much for my "no-compromise" gun rights organization. I also contacted JPFO this evening, but I am not expecting a response until tomorrow.
I used to train Soldiers in my off time using my weapons and ammo. We've done reflexive fire drills in my garage, AK-47 familiarization with my AKs, preliminary marksmanship instruction with my ARs and my Beretta, and live-fire training with my Beretta at an off-post range using my ammo. No more, never again. I can't let it be known from now on that I'm a gun owner in the military. And it's too bad since my former troops got more live-fire instruction from me than they ever did from the Army. Nobody will ever hand them a case of ammo again and have them practice until they're ankle-deep in brass. It will be 40 rounds a quarter on each weapons system from now on, and your nation is weaker as a result.
If you'd like to write your Congressman to complain about the policy, PM me and I'll send you the supporting documents to include with your letter. But without the weight of the NRA/GOA/SAF behind it, I'm not counting on any change.
Here's the real kicker:
Note that no exception was made for other people's weapons kept on the Soldier's property, such as a spouse's or roommate's weapons. Yes, they are requiring us to register guns that don't belong to us as long as they are kept on our property. If you don't, you're subject to punitive action.
Every member of my old unit was forced to write a sworn statement stating whether or not they had firearms on their property when it looked like the unit registration requirement was being ignored. I'll admit, the gun owners in my battalion all knew who had guns and who didn't and the requirement was being ignored while we sought assistance from outside groups. A couple of Soldiers who had only one or two guns and were relatively high-ranking gave up their information as cover for the rest of us while we contacted pro-gun rights organizations. Once we had to make the sworn statements, we were screwed. My company commander didn't even think what they were doing was legal. The fact that the brigade, battalion, or company commander could order us to turn in our weapons for "safekeeping" at their whim did not sit well with anyone. The basis for their decision to force us to register was, of course, Soldier safety. The brigade policy letter stated that it was to protect the leadership from disgruntled troops if they had to intervene in an off-post situation at the Soldier's home, the battalion commander said it was to protect Soldiers with mental issues from themselves. Basically, if you are being a problem, the commander can take your guns.
It was back in May when the policy was put into effect. I would have posted this sooner, but I was still a member of the unit. Now I'm not, so I have no problem with my thoughts on the policy being known. Anyways, several of us contacted the NRA-ILA. I'm a life member of the NRA, so I figured I could get some support. Their response was that since Heller was about a person trying to win the right to register a gun, they had to support registration. They also thought that the commander had the authority to force registration, so they didn't see the need to intervene. NRA did say they opposed registration as a political position, but that it was not their legal position in the Heller case. In addition to that, they said that they had received the same complaint from numerous Soldiers belonging to various units at other Army posts all over the country that week, so it wasn't just one brigade commander acting on his own. So the NRA-ILA was of no help. I contacted the GOA, of which I am also a life member. Their public liaison said they were against registration and that he would forward the info to his supervisor. I begged them to make the policy public so the weight of public opinion could be brought to bear against the Congress, who could do something about this. Nothing happened, no press release, no mention on their website, nothing. All I got was the public liaison lamenting that it wasn't the same Army he had served in back in the 1960s. So I contacted SAF, which I am also a life member of. They didn't even respond to my e-mail. I contacted the NRA and the GOA again today since we are now in a post-Heller kind of world. No response from the NRA yet, but the GOA still does not seem to think this is an issue, even with the registration of other people's weapons requirement. So much for my "no-compromise" gun rights organization. I also contacted JPFO this evening, but I am not expecting a response until tomorrow.
I used to train Soldiers in my off time using my weapons and ammo. We've done reflexive fire drills in my garage, AK-47 familiarization with my AKs, preliminary marksmanship instruction with my ARs and my Beretta, and live-fire training with my Beretta at an off-post range using my ammo. No more, never again. I can't let it be known from now on that I'm a gun owner in the military. And it's too bad since my former troops got more live-fire instruction from me than they ever did from the Army. Nobody will ever hand them a case of ammo again and have them practice until they're ankle-deep in brass. It will be 40 rounds a quarter on each weapons system from now on, and your nation is weaker as a result.
If you'd like to write your Congressman to complain about the policy, PM me and I'll send you the supporting documents to include with your letter. But without the weight of the NRA/GOA/SAF behind it, I'm not counting on any change.
