Sen. Inhofe Introduces Legislation To Protect Second Amendment Rights Of Military...

[kry226]

Finally, a little post-Fort Hood common sense. I've been terrified of what further firearms restrictions and knee-jerk reactions the "DoD panel" was going to recommend to SECDEF.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5859



Sen. Inhofe Introduces Legislation To Protect Second Amendment Rights Of Military And Dept. Of Defense Civilian Personnel

Friday, May 28, 2010

Over a period of some months, NRA members in the Armed Forces have called NRA's attention to the fact that certain military base commanders, exercising arbitrary authority given them under military law and regulations, have issued orders violating military personnel's Second Amendment rights. In a particularly egregious example, Fort Riley, Kansas, has imposed a preposterous regulation that, among other things, (1) requires the registration, with Fort Riley, of its soldiers' privately-owned firearms kept off-base, and those of the soldiers' family members residing anywhere in Kansas, (2) prohibits soldiers who have firearm-carrying permits from carrying firearms for protection off-base, and (3) authorizes unit commanders to set arbitrary limits on the caliber of firearms and ammunition their troops may privately own.

Concurrently, following the multiple shooting on Fort Hood last year, allegedly committed with one or more firearms brought onto the base in violation of base regulations, the Department of Defense (DOD) began working on a regulation that, among other things, would require military commanders to require troops to register privately owned firearms kept off-base, and authorize such commanders to require troops living off-base to keep privately-owned firearms and ammunition locked in separate containers, the latter a restriction of the same type as, but more restrictive than, a law struck down by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). The D.C. law, the Court concluded, "makes it impossible for citizens to use [firearms] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

To nullify existing military orders and regulations that violate certain Second Amendment rights of military and civilian DOD personnel, and to preempt other orders and regulations of the sort, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. Sen. Inhofe's amendment, adopted on May 27 by the Senate Armed Services Committee:

o States that "[T]he Secretary of Defense shall not prohibit, issue any requirement relating to, or collect or record any information relating to the otherwise lawful acquisition, possession, ownership, carrying, or other use of a privately owned firearm, privately-owned ammunition, or another privately-owned weapon by a member of the Armed Forces or civilian employee of the Department of Defense on property that is not owned or operated by the Department of Defense."

o Nullifies military orders and regulations of the types the amendment prohibits

o Requires DOD to destroy all gun ownership records of the types the amendment prohibits

o Preserves DOD's authority to "regulate the possession, carrying, or other use of a firearm, ammunition, or other weapon" by personnel on-duty or in military uniform

o Preserves DOD's authority to "create and maintain records relating to an investigation, prosecution, or adjudication of an alleged violation of law (including regulations) not prohibited by the amendment, including matters related to whether a member of the Armed Forces constitutes a threat to himself or others."

[telecustom]

As a side note to this article, the FT Riley Reg has been repealed as of 25 May. We were all very happy and wouldn't have complied with it anyway.

[kry226]

As a side note to this article, the FT Riley Reg has been repealed as of 25 May. We were all very happy and wouldn't have complied with it anyway.

Awesome. I was very disgusted when I read that, as Riley is probably on my short list of future assignments. Reminds me of some company commander at Fort Campbell who did this last year. I believe he got skinned up pretty good once word of his policy memorandum got out. By the way, how long was the Fort Riley reg in effect?

Thanks for the update. :cool:

[telecustom]

The Reg was out for about 2 months. What really bothered was the fact they (Post) used back door (not command) channels to put the info out. Very sneeky and unofficial.

PM me about Riley.

[SeriousStudent]

Holy smokes, I had not heard about that set of orders at Fort Riley. :eek:

One of the things I learned very early, as a young NCO, was that you should never issue an order that you know people will ignore. All it does is teach contempt for their chain of command. That is a hell of a lot worse for the Army than some Specialist having a shotgun to protect his family in off-base housing.

I guess there is a light bird somewhere that should have gone to Combat Squad Leader's School, instead of OCS....

I'm going to email Senator Inhofe's office, thanking him for looking out for the rights of our soldiers and their families.

[13F3OL7]

As a side note to this article, the FT Riley Reg has been repealed as of 25 May. We were all very happy and wouldn't have complied with it anyway.


It would be nice if they did that in Alaska. Even though state law allows for the carry of concealed firearms, Army personnel stationed in Alaska are prohibited from it because, "it presents a danger to personnel and their families."

[kry226]

It would be nice if they did that in Alaska. Even though state law allows for the carry of concealed firearms, Army personnel stationed in Alaska are prohibited from it because, "it presents a danger to personnel and their families."

And the bad guys do what, exactly?

Is this a state law directed at troops, or Army policy in Alaska?

[13F3OL7]

It's the USARAK CG's policy. It's unconstitutional in my opinion. By putting forth that policy MG Jacoby, and every CG since has continued it, took away a tool to ensure one's safety. We can be trusted to carry a loaded weapon downrange and perform dangerous tasks, but God forbid we'd want to carry a concealed weapon when at home.

[Heavy Metal]

It would be nice if they did that in Alaska. Even though state law allows for the carry of concealed firearms, Army personnel stationed in Alaska are prohibited from it because, "it presents a danger to personnel and their families."

If they prohibited Concealed Carry for me up there, I would Open Carry.

**** it, it's Alaska, not Metropolis.

[BrianS]

In a particularly egregious example, Fort Riley, Kansas, has imposed a preposterous regulation that, among other things, (1) requires the registration, with Fort Riley, of its soldiers' privately-owned firearms kept off-base, and those of the soldiers' family members residing anywhere in Kansas...

Realize somebody said this regulation was canceled already, but does that mean if this regulation still existed and I was in the military (I am not) and stationed at Fort Riley I would somehow have to register the firearms owned by all my Uncles/Aunts/Cousins that live in Kansas?

"Preposterous" sounds about right! It would be impossible to comply with a regulation like that, even if you were inclined to do so. If the leadership is coming up with rules like that it is up to Congress to reign them in, I will be emailing my various reps to ask them to support.

[telecustom]

I will post the rescinded FT Riley Reg on Tuesday once I get back to work.

[Heavy Metal]

Realize somebody said this regulation was canceled already, but does that mean if this regulation still existed and I was in the military (I am not) and stationed at Fort Riley I would somehow have to register the firearms owned by all my Uncles/Aunts/Cousins that live in Kansas?

And what legal authority would I, as a soldier, have to compel my civilian relatives to provide this information on thier private property that is not under my control?

Untill the JAG can cite the relevant statute in USC providing me with such necessary jurisdiction to compel the release of that information, I cannot comply with this order.

That would be my response to that request.


Anybody want an example of a %100 so illegal that Ray Charles could see it order, the above requirement for the registration information for civilian relatives is it.

[telecustom]

Realize somebody said this regulation was canceled already, but does that mean if this regulation still existed and I was in the military (I am not) and stationed at Fort Riley I would somehow have to register the firearms owned by all my Uncles/Aunts/Cousins that live in Kansas?
"Preposterous" sounds about right! It would be impossible to comply with a regulation like that, even if you were inclined to do so. If the leadership is coming up with rules like that it is up to Congress to reign them in, I will be emailing my various reps to ask them to support.

That is exactly what it was directing.

[Heavy Metal]

If the leadership is coming up with rules like that it is up to Congress to reign them in, I will be emailing my various reps to ask them to support.

Any officer dumb enough to come up with that requirement is of such questionable judgement he is unfit to serve, much less hold a commission in the United States Army.

[SeriousStudent]

I will post the rescinded FT Riley Reg on Tuesday once I get back to work.

Thanks in advance for doing so. Part of me really wants to read it. The other part of me remembers I have to take medicine for high blood pressure.....

And thank you for your service to our country.

[kry226]

Any officer dumb enough to come up with that requirement is of such questionable judgement he is unfit to serve, much less hold a commission in the United States Army.

You see, that's just it. The military for eons has been creating generations of knee-jerk reactors and this rings dangerously true with what I've posted in the "guy blew his hand off with a .50 cal round" thread. When something "bad" happens, the chain of command is at least partially responsible. It's not right, but it is simply a fact.

I assume, though I have no first-hand knowledge, that obviously aside from the from the injured, maimed, and dead, a lot of careers were destroyed that day on Fort Hood because someone had to be held responsible for a gunman shooting all of those people on what is "perceived" as one of the most secure-type places in the country.

The entire military took notice and now you have installation commanders saying, "Not on my watch!" and putting idiotic and unconstitutional policies in place in order to CYA. In society, the pendulum is always swinging, and at least for the military, the pendulum has swung into the ridiculous.

Hopefully, now that this amendment has passed committee in the Senate, it will survive the House and any compromises. The good thing going for us is that even the Dems know that even though they'd like to, they really don't have the political capital to expend on passing further gun control legislation. This is especially true, in light of the knowledge that they know they're going to get shellacked in November.

[telecustom]

I was not able to attach the entire FR 190-1 due to the size of the file. Here is paragraph 7, sub paragraph c:

c. Military personnel will:

(1) Register all their privately-owned firearms and the firearms of their Family members that are stored in their residence or within the state of Kansas, with thier unit commander on a (Form name omitted).

(2) (omitted due to lack of relevance).

(3) Military personnel must have written authorization from their commander to store another individual's privately-owned firearm(s) in the military personnel's on-post quarters. The military personnel is responsible for ensuring that the privately-owned firearm is registered in accordance with this regulation. A photocopy if the completed (Form name omitted), will be considered sufficient proof of registration. Privately-owned firearms already registered by their owners need not be registered again by the military person storing them.

The rest of the regulation is fairly strait forward and standard for all Military instillations.

[ST911]

Too bad there isn't a provision for CCW on installation so that troops and their families don't have to violate regs to do it.

[kry226]

Too bad there isn't a provision for CCW on installation so that troops and their families don't have to violate regs to do it.

In his monthly newsletter, Paul Howe was calling for the same thing. He'd like to see a military CCW to allow troops to carry on-post.

[SeriousStudent]

Telecustom, thank you for posting the information. I'll include the details with my letter to Senator Inhofe's office.

Out of pure idle curiosity, I wonder what good a letter to Secretary McHugh's office would do?

[SteyrAUG]

Pretty sad say when average soldiers aren't trusted with duty weapons and Muslims are trusted with the care and well being of those soldiers.

The entire Fort Hood thing was a disgrace.

[Belmont31R]

Pretty sad say when average soldiers aren't trusted with duty weapons and Muslims are trusted with the care and well being of those soldiers.

The entire Fort Hood thing was a disgrace.




What? Soldiers are not even trusted to be let go for the weekend without a 30 min to 1hr safety brief, and going on leave means risk assessments, counselings, trip planning, copies of airline tickets, etc.


There is no way CCW will be allowed on post. They'll search your room for a 4" knife let alone allow anyone to carry a weapon non-duty related, and even then not without a lot of BS.


BTW there was a damn muslim kid in my last unit I deployed with who took a religious objection to going outside the wire, and my unit actually never made him go out. So some "christian" soldier had to take his place.

[SteyrAUG]

What? Soldiers are not even trusted to be let go for the weekend without a 30 min to 1hr safety brief, and going on leave means risk assessments, counselings, trip planning, copies of airline tickets, etc.


There is no way CCW will be allowed on post. They'll search your room for a 4" knife let alone allow anyone to carry a weapon non-duty related, and even then not without a lot of BS.


BTW there was a damn muslim kid in my last unit I deployed with who took a religious objection to going outside the wire, and my unit actually never made him go out. So some "christian" soldier had to take his place.

And that is a shame. They should have court martialed his ass.

If they ever ****ed up and elected me President all soldiers on base would be able to sling duty rifles if they wanted.

[armakraut]

Not enough blood on the tarmac yet.