Service members sign away many of their rights when they join the service. You certainly can sign away rights.
Gun-confiscation fears lead to protest in northern Idaho
- Thread starter BK
- Start date
- Status
Service members sign away many of their rights when they join the service. You certainly can sign away rights.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Name a right I "signed away" on December 10th, 1985 when I enlisted in the Navy.
Freedom of speech
Freedom to choose where you live
Freedom to disobey an order from a superior.
I have not served in the military. However I have family that has and still do. They have joked the the words "Property of the US Government" on their dog tags do not refer to the tags but to the person. It is a joke but also somewhat true. As a member of the military you will do what you are told or face the consequences which could include prison time. What would happen if a service member was told they were deploying and that person said, "no, I'm not going" and went AWOL?
On the other hand I as a civilian I can tell my boss to go pound sand and the worse thing they can do to me is fire me.
BSA1
member
This is not a accurate statement. Enlistment in the Armed Forces is merely a voluntary contract between the Branch of Service and the enlistee in which the enlistee agrees to certain conditions in exchange for certain benefits from the Military.
Agreeing to certain standards of behavior is no different than being hired by a private employer.
Freedom to choose where you live and freedom to disobey an order from a superior are not Rights covered in the 10 Amendments.
As for Freedom of Speech try stating outside the front door of your work place and tell everyone coming and going what a rotten boss you have.
Or try exercising your Right to Free Speech by telling people about confidential information about your employer such as who they have contracts with or how a certain product is made. You can very well face criminal charges.
What the V.A. doing is changing (adding) the condition of the former service member contract without his permission and without negotiating a new contract.
Say for example you retire from a company after 20 years and start to draw benefits from your companies pension plan. After retirement your eyesight becomes worse and you have to have eyeglasses of a certain correction in order to see better. Your employer then decides that you can not own a car because you have wear this type of eyeglasses in order to see where you are driving. Unless you get rid of your car you will not longer receive pension benefits.
The big difference is you do not have a right to own a car or drive but you do have the Right to own firearms.
Last edited:
alsaqr
Member
The VA has done this stuff off and on since about 1998 when they dumped the names of about 90,000 veterans into NICS.
The veteran has the right to appeal.
http://www.benefits.va.gov/fiduciary/beneficiary.asp
The culprit is this statement in the NICS Improvements Amendments Act of 2007:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=49#terms
Our former OK senator Coburn promised veterans he would fix this one. He proposed legislation for the fix by amending the defense appropriations bill. Then Coburn bowed to senator Schumer. Coburn kept on promising us veterans he would fix the problem but he never did.
JR24
Member
I miss Art Bell...
But yeah, having heard plenty of interviews with Alex Jones, I can't stay far enough away from infowars articles.
Crayfish
Member
http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/feds-gun-grab-plan-sparks-protest-in-idaho/#YpfX633VYBdGqd44.01[/URL]
Here is a link to another story. Home gun confiscation is not the only avenue the feds have. Is is much easier to prohibit any firearm purchases just by denying your background check or your CCW permit. There are always two sides to this and anything else so.....pick one. Don't pretend you support the US constitution and then come up with excuses to ignore it. We know this administration has no respect for the constitution or US citizens. They especially despise veterans and the military in general.
Here is a link to another story. Home gun confiscation is not the only avenue the feds have. Is is much easier to prohibit any firearm purchases just by denying your background check or your CCW permit. There are always two sides to this and anything else so.....pick one. Don't pretend you support the US constitution and then come up with excuses to ignore it. We know this administration has no respect for the constitution or US citizens. They especially despise veterans and the military in general.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Freedom of speech
Wrong.
Freedom to choose where you live
Wrong.
Freedom to disobey an order from a superior.
Wrong.
As a member of the military you will do what you are told or face the consequences which could include prison time.
You face these in civilian life, as well.
What would happen if a service member was told they were deploying and that person said, "no, I'm not going" and went AWOL?
What would happen if you told your employer you weren't going where he needed you or do what he needed? What would happen to a child who did the same of his parents?
On the other hand I as a civilian I can tell my boss to go pound sand and the worse thing they can do to me is fire me.
Which is a consequence you accept.
I can, and have, told my superiors at one time or the other to "pound sand". And I was not charged or placed in irons.
(MOD: Yeah bit over the top there)
Servicemembers are not mindless automatons who blindly follow whatever they are told to do. They don't give up their right to vote, their right to peaceably assemble and protest, their right to freedom of religion, their freedom of speech, or any of these other things you may have issue with.
HOWEVER, as servicemembers, they aren't like civilians in one, very important, aspect that people seem to lose perspective of, and this is where understanding breaks down. This is in addition to the obvious one that their duty involves going in harms way:
SERVICEMEMBERS ARE DIRECT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENT.
So all those restrictions that are placed on the federal government ALSO apply to them as well.
These matters are addressed, too. For example, it's perfectly acceptable for a servicemember to participate in political rallies but not in uniform or otherwise in a manner in which he may appear to represent the government.
And his duty for obeying extends to obeying the LAWFUL orders and regulations. Not blind obediance to all orders he may be given.
Anyway, I should really stop here. This is already way out the scope of this thread.
Wrong.
Freedom to choose where you live
Wrong.
Freedom to disobey an order from a superior.
Wrong.
As a member of the military you will do what you are told or face the consequences which could include prison time.
You face these in civilian life, as well.
What would happen if a service member was told they were deploying and that person said, "no, I'm not going" and went AWOL?
What would happen if you told your employer you weren't going where he needed you or do what he needed? What would happen to a child who did the same of his parents?
On the other hand I as a civilian I can tell my boss to go pound sand and the worse thing they can do to me is fire me.
Which is a consequence you accept.
I can, and have, told my superiors at one time or the other to "pound sand". And I was not charged or placed in irons.
(MOD: Yeah bit over the top there)
Servicemembers are not mindless automatons who blindly follow whatever they are told to do. They don't give up their right to vote, their right to peaceably assemble and protest, their right to freedom of religion, their freedom of speech, or any of these other things you may have issue with.
HOWEVER, as servicemembers, they aren't like civilians in one, very important, aspect that people seem to lose perspective of, and this is where understanding breaks down. This is in addition to the obvious one that their duty involves going in harms way:
SERVICEMEMBERS ARE DIRECT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENT.
So all those restrictions that are placed on the federal government ALSO apply to them as well.
These matters are addressed, too. For example, it's perfectly acceptable for a servicemember to participate in political rallies but not in uniform or otherwise in a manner in which he may appear to represent the government.
And his duty for obeying extends to obeying the LAWFUL orders and regulations. Not blind obediance to all orders he may be given.
Anyway, I should really stop here. This is already way out the scope of this thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
Phdui76
Member
How does the Govt. even know this is a problem? Are there data that show these vets and SSA citizens are felons and violent?
I want to see what they are basing this on...
I want to see what they are basing this on...
The VA reports to the NCIS the names of veterans who have been declared incompetent to handle their own affairs and have a fiduciary assigned to manage their affairs.
Yes, a citizen voluntarily enters into an contract with the armed services. Once they have signed that contract it is no longer voluntary. They are not free to leave that contract before it has expired. They also agree to be judged by the military code of conduct which is more restrictive of personal rights than civilian life.
No. The VA is reporting to NCIS people that have declared themselves to be incompetent to handle their personal affairs. That decision has consequences.
A right that these veterans are freely signing away.
United States v Henry H. Howe Jr. 2nd LT Howes was in the Army Reserves. He participated in a political rally wearing civilian clothes and carried a sign calling the President a fascist. He was videotaped during the rally and identified by the military. Howes was tried, found guilty and sentenced to dismissal, loss of all pay and benefits, and 2 years hard labor. His case went through the military appeals and then was appealed to the Supreme Court. The verdict was upheld. He serve prison time was was paroled after 3 months. Just one example of how members of the military give up freedoms. (In this case the freedom of speech and freedom to assembly as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.)
Anyway, I should really stop here. This is already way out the scope of this thread.
You are correct, restrictions on military members is only tangential to the topic. However, it is an example that a person can sign away their rights, including those guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. That is how this came up, as a response to the statement that a citizen of the USA cannot sign away rights. They can and do, both in the military and civilian world.
Last edited:
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I never said a person could not sign away their rights. I said to name a right I signed away when I enlisted in respose to a statement that this is what people do whwn they join the military. I signed none away.
A person CAN sign away a right.
As for 2nd Lt Howes...that was one case, back in 1965. How many such cases have there been since the UCMJ became law in 1951? And of those, how many convictions, and under what specifics?
Darned near zero.
1911 guy
Member
It amazes me. If this were a law passed by legislation, the gun community would be in a tizzy calling for the replacement of any elected official voting for this at the next election cycle. But since this is regulation by a faceless entity, we look for reasons why it's alright.
Sure there are consequences for actions and decisions. But how many were given the opportunity for INFORMED consent? Several on this very board have expressed that they were pressured into assigning a fiduciary or had the benefits of such explained while none of the negative consequences were mentioned. If this same scenario were to happen in a doctor's office with surgery, the advice would be to lawyer up.
Why the double standard?
Sure there are consequences for actions and decisions. But how many were given the opportunity for INFORMED consent? Several on this very board have expressed that they were pressured into assigning a fiduciary or had the benefits of such explained while none of the negative consequences were mentioned. If this same scenario were to happen in a doctor's office with surgery, the advice would be to lawyer up.
Why the double standard?
Snyper
Member
Simply having a representative payee is not the same thing as being "declared incompetent" to handle their own affairs.
Being declared incompetent does fit the definition of "adjudicated", and requires evidence from Drs
People need to stop putting so much faith in news reports from Infowars and start gettting their info from the SS websites, and pay attention to the precise wording used
No double standard. I have little sympathy for anyone that signs legal documents that they don't understand.
SSN Vet
Member
freedom from unwarranted search and seizure...
Tell me you didn't pony up a DNA sample in compliance when you received the (unconstitutional) order... with a clear threat of punishment if you fail to comply.
You can call it a contract all you want, but they don't throw guys in the brig for breach of contract in any other walk of life.
1911 guy
Member
It was explained pretty clearly when i enlisted that while I didn't "lose" any Constitutional rights, they were temporarily suspended while I was in.
Conspiracy theory blogs are short on the truth and long on paranoia and delusions. By the way, the VA does not confiscate guns ever. Law enforcement agencies confiscate guns. The VA does do competency evaluations.
It is very likely that a large number of Infowars readers have untreated Paranoid Personality Disorder.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
It's NOT a "contract" and never was. That's a common error. Calling it something it's not, and then assuming it has the legal qualities associated with that, does not magically make it so.
And it's pretty amazing how people complain about an all-voluntary service, too. If they don't like what it means to serve in the military, then they shouldn't.
The military is, by its very nature, a different beast than civilian walks of life. Therefore the rules which govern it are necessarily different. Being in the military is not, and cannot be, like being a civilian.
As for "unwarranted search and seizure"...there ARE rules even the military is bound by with respect to that.
TimSr
Member
It's a shame that such a topic results in a bunch of side arguments that are not relevant to the original subject.
There is no such thing as a "credible news agency". We have the burden of sifting through multiple available accounts, and trying to detemrine what version of truth is most believable.
The story is about a veteran who is not active. He fears his rights are in jeopardy from bureaucratic policy. Maybe they are, maybe they are not, but his fear should not be mocked. Is it really that far fetched that a government bureaucracy might abuse or misuse their powers and authority? Whether they intend to do so or not, he is getting comfort and support of his neighbors vowing to stand with him should such things occur.
We had the very discussion on THR about what this policy change really means, and how it might be abused. I can't undertstand why this discussion on the same topic is about news agencies and what civilians can do that soldiers cannot.
There is no such thing as a "credible news agency". We have the burden of sifting through multiple available accounts, and trying to detemrine what version of truth is most believable.
The story is about a veteran who is not active. He fears his rights are in jeopardy from bureaucratic policy. Maybe they are, maybe they are not, but his fear should not be mocked. Is it really that far fetched that a government bureaucracy might abuse or misuse their powers and authority? Whether they intend to do so or not, he is getting comfort and support of his neighbors vowing to stand with him should such things occur.
We had the very discussion on THR about what this policy change really means, and how it might be abused. I can't undertstand why this discussion on the same topic is about news agencies and what civilians can do that soldiers cannot.
Sheepdog1968
Member
When Ebola cases happened in the USA last year and it wasn't clear if it would be contained, I found that Yahoo News was the best source of info at the time. Also, when the Anthrax happened right after Sep 11th, it was mentioned very briefly by the main news and then went ver quiet. I worked in a lab that was a stickler on safety and if you were the last one to leave and you missed something on the closed own protocol, they really gave you a tongue lashing. When someone really screwed up and a vac pump snaffled up several kg of mercury, the lab managers were really quiet. My conclusion is that when really bad things happen, things go quiet. This is based on incidents over the past 20 years.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked