Weapon Registration by All

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 20:12:56 -0500

One of the investigations recommendations from last year's Ft Hood shooting is to require all Soldiers to register privately owned weapons, not just those brought into post.

Your thoughts?

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/01/23/fort-hood-lopez-shooting/20650031/

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2015 8:32 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 20:32:27 -0500

I don't know, LTC Private RallyPoint Member. That measure might appease the gun control crowd, but I wonder if it would stop things like the Fort Hood shooting? I'm guessing maybe not, at least not in all cases. While I'm a pro-gun guy, I don't have a problem with registering weapons, so I like the idea. I just question the end effect it will have.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Jan 23 at 2015 9:20 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 21:20:19 -0500

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2015 9:41 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 21:41:34 -0500

LTC Private RallyPoint Member, I could be wrong but I thought when I first came in back in the late 80's that was the case sir. I am not positive though as it did not apply to me.

My personal thought on it is that it shall not change the outcome of an individual who decides to act silly on any given day.

Per the article; "did not find anything in the assailant's background, medical or military profiles that might have provided an early warning for potential violence, according to findings released Friday, "

By this in itself a registration of a weapon would not have made a difference. It did go on to say that he was undergoing treatment for several medical conditions which is extremely vague in order to make it sound bad and to create drama in the eyes of the reader.

We must stop punishing all for the actions of a few. This is still a "FREE NATION!" Let's keep it that way.

Response by MSgt Bj Jones made Jan 23 at 2015 10:20 PM

MSgt Bj Jones — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 22:20:35 -0500

Absolutely not. It's a great way for those in government to track us and later try to take away our weapons. I'm of the same mind-set as Charlton Heston: They can have my guns when they can pry them from my cold, dead hands. I support both open and concealed carry.

Response by PO2 Stephen Brinkley (Scott) made Jan 23 at 2015 10:43 PM

PO2 Stephen Brinkley (Scott) — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 22:43:08 -0500

LTC Private RallyPoint Member everybase I was stationed at the requirement was to register your guns with the base, even if you lived off base

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2015 1:36 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 24 Jan 2015 01:36:37 -0500

Commanders at Fort Riley, Kan., wanted troops to register privately owned weapons kept on and off base back in 2011, didn't go over well.

Under Subtitle G–Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2011, but there it is:
SEC. 1062. PROHIBITION ON INFRINGING ON THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO LAWFULLY ACQUIRE, POSSESS, OWN, CARRY, AND OTHERWISE USE PRIVATELY OWNED FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, AND OTHER WEAPONS.
(a) In General- Except as provided in subsection (c), the 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–
(1) a military installation; or
(2) any other property that is owned or operated by the Department of Defense.
What this means, is that military commanders can no longer talk with troops about the advisability of their owning firearms.

[This section below kind of paraphrased]
On 2 January 2013, President Barack Obama signed into law the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Public Law 112-239.

Among its voluminous provisions is section 1057, which specifically amends section 1062(c) of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act of 2011, Public Law 111-383.3

Importantly, section 1057:
"Authorize[s] a health professional that is a member of the Armed Forces or a civilian
employee of the Department of Defense or a commanding officer to inquire if a member of the Armed Forces plans to acquire, or already possesses or owns, a privately-owned firearm, ammunition, or other weapon, if such health professional or such commanding officer has reasonable grounds to believe such member is at risk for suicide or causing harm to others."

Therefore, section 1057 clarifies and delineates the limits under which commanders operate when dealing with offpost gun ownership by servicemembers who may cause harm to themselves or others. Under section 1062(a) of the 2011 NDAA, the Secretary of Defense was proscribed from prohibiting, issuing requirements relating to, collecting, or recording any information relating to the 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 (DoD) on non-DoD owned or controlled property (i.e., issuing orders regarding off-post ownership of firearms)

Section 1057 does not provide a commander the ability to prohibit the purchase of off-post firearms or to order their confiscation in the event a servicemember is perceived to be a danger to himself or others. However, if a commander has knowledge that a servicemember owns or possesses firearms at his off-post residence, the commander maintains the inherent authority to order the servicemember to relocate on-post until his mental state can be fully ascertained. Therefore, section 1057 provides commanders some flexibility when dealing with issues associated with servicemember distress balanced against constitutional rights.
https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/DocLibs/ArmyLawyer.nsf/c82df279f9445da185256e5b005244ee/58e98be7c2a6a27685257c47006702c0/$FILE/New%20Developments.pdf

“The majority of [suicides] have two things in common: Alcohol and a gun. That’s just the way it is,” General Peter Chiarelli, the Army’s former Vice Chief of Staff. Half of troops that killed themselves use firearms to end their life and “suicide in most cases is a spontaneous event” that is often fueled by drugs and alcohol. But “if you can separate the individual from the weapon,” he added, “you can lower the incidences of suicide.”

The lethality of guns do make suicide attempts more likely to succeed. So if some individual gets the notion in their head to commit suicide by, say, self-inflicted gunshot wound, and they can't do it easily, they might stop? No, they will find another way.

It doesn't matter how easy guns make things, people would simply find other ways. The military even has experts and studies in mental health backing them up. The VA backs the military officials, that kind of the blind leading the blind.

Jan Kemp, National Mental Health Director for the VA, pointed to a study that found that a large number of suicides are impulsive events. If someone plans to jump off a bridge and finds that the bridge is closed, “Studies show that they won’t go to another bridge,” says Dr. Kemp. “They will think about it.” Yeah, keep thinking that.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Jan 24 at 2015 4:58 AM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Sat, 24 Jan 2015 04:58:22 -0500

The DoD has no need to know if I am not storing them on post. I currently live on post so mine are registered.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2015 6:00 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 24 Jan 2015 18:00:31 -0500

Those that think the government does not already have a semi-list already are lying to themselves. Unless it is personal sales (legal in states where it is authorized) if you are legally buying guns you go through a background check and they have you fill out a form for you to fill out and it has the details of the sale. The store or FFL keeps it as they are audited by the government (ATF, etc.). So if they put that all together they have the list already. So in reality what is the big deal? On the other hand what gives them the right to do that and in certain areas give the information to newspapers as freedom of information act for those who have concealment permits?

Lists do not keep crimes from not happening. It is just action for action sake.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2015 8:01 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 24 Jan 2015 20:01:06 -0500

You wont find me doing that! Just because i dont want to doesnt mean im doing anything illegal. I prefer not to let anyone know what or how many i may or may not have on my own private property. My 2 cents.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Jan 24 at 2015 8:30 PM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Sat, 24 Jan 2015 20:30:37 -0500

Nope.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jan 24 at 2015 11:30 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Sat, 24 Jan 2015 23:30:05 -0500

Why don't we address the mental issues of our service members a little better and also identify extremist like Hasan instead of punishing the innocent?

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Jan 25 at 2015 12:00 AM

CSM Charles Hayden — Sun, 25 Jan 2015 00:00:32 -0500

LTC J Keith Purvis, I was amazed in the early 1970s @ Ft xxx. I rode w/ a SFC (Vietnam SF veteran), who went to the PMO to register ? 16 handguns. When we drove off, "he said that is a relief, now all I have to be concerned w/ is the SS Browning". In response to me saying,"what Browning?" The SFC said, "they told me when I completed the mission, the gun was mine. Besides it does not have a serial number".

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jan 25 at 2015 12:06 AM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Sun, 25 Jan 2015 00:06:05 -0500

I think all devices that have a tube or some ejection area connected to it and something comes out of that tube needs to be registered. You name it, it needs to be registered. Over flow the system.

Response by PO2 Thomas MacDermott made Jan 25 at 2015 12:07 AM

PO2 Thomas MacDermott — Sun, 25 Jan 2015 00:07:56 -0500

No.

Military Personnel should not have their 2nd Amendment infringed upon in any way. We ALL have been taught small arms usage and the application of Lethal Force. Those in Non-Combat Roles may not have had the usage or issued firearms as part of their duties, yet they still received the basic training.

These "Base Shootings" have been a part of the untold history of ALL Military Units throughout history. In some groups it was called "Fragging", Mutiny, and other names. It will continue into the future.

Today's ranting on "something must be done" can be summed up by this example of frivolous idealism:
In Church last Sunday, a member of the congregation passed gas. Starting next week, ALL attendees must be fitted with a Butt Plug. This way no one can pass gas and disrupt the proceedings.

Will the requirement of personnel to 'register' all firearms in their possession, issued or civilian acquired, stop these incidents? NO. Frankly, it doesn't matter how the firearm is acquired. It was used unlawfully, I say again "USED UNLAWFULLY".

A mind set on committing a crime, no longer thinks of the Laws. Nor do they care what is right or wrong.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2015 12:07 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 25 Jan 2015 00:07:57 -0500

Very respectfully, screw that! Infringing on the rights of those who volunteered to serve the nation and to protect the constitution would be hypocritical and a punishment for service.

You have folks hat actually undergo vetting, and training so THEY SHOULD be the ones we arm the best.

The reason we had attacks on US posts is precisely because our troops are unarmed. Our weapons are locked in arms rooms, and our ammo is locked in the ASP. We will continue to see our troops victimized precisely because our bases and units are not dude signed and operated for their own defense.

Best thing to do is let, and encourage, our guys to carry at all times, and posture all units for imediate base defense.

Kind of hard to cause a massacre when the first person to recognize a threat starts sending lead to the face.

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Jan 25 at 2015 12:27 AM

LTC Stephen C. — Sun, 25 Jan 2015 00:27:03 -0500

LTC Private RallyPoint Member, I'm glad I'm retired!

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Jan 25 at 2015 10:15 PM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Sun, 25 Jan 2015 22:15:17 -0500

- Requiring all Soldiers to register privately owned weapons, not just on post? Absolutely not.
- Soldiers should be held to a higher standard of conduct than civilians because of who we are and what we do but we should not be held to a higher standard of law compliance.
- Any regulation applied to Soldiers should be the minimum required to achieve an effect and should be directly related to the Army's mission. This is one reason why motorcycle requirements are higher for Soldiers than for civilians. Accidents and safety trends show what is killing Soldiers and what can be done to mitigate the deaths and accidents. Forbidding a Soldier to own a motorcycle would be going too far. Ensuring that a Soldier is properly trained and wears proper equipment is a reasonable response.
- Requiring all POWs to be registered will solve what problem exactly? If there is a problem and registering all POWs is the solution, how exactly is the local chain of command supposed to enforce the requirement? A chain of command has little authority to force their way into a private residence off post therefore the requirement could only be punished after the fact if a Soldier did not comply.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jan 25 at 2015 10:30 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Sun, 25 Jan 2015 22:30:45 -0500

I am opposed.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2015 11:24 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 25 Jan 2015 23:24:23 -0500

That's a big ole NOPE! Shouldn't have to register them anywhere. The reality is that those who want to do harm are going to. Those who want to break the law are going to. Strict punishment for violators is more helpful IMO. And that idiot from Ft Hood should have already been sent to meet his maker by now... that whole situation is frustrating to me.

Response by SFC Stephen P. made Jan 26 at 2015 9:15 PM

SFC Stephen P. — Mon, 26 Jan 2015 21:15:21 -0500

Those who advocate registration rarely understand the implications of Haynes v. United States.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2015 10:28 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 22:28:21 -0500

UH NO...if I obtained the weapon legally they can leave me alone!

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Apr 19 at 2015 2:39 PM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 14:39:40 -0400

My compliance with this is in great doubt, and I am sure I am not alone.

Besides, it would be an asinine policy with much cost and no benefit.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Apr 22 at 2015 10:02 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:02:56 -0400

The answer is almost always more freedom, not less. Arm the Armed Forces!
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces

Arm the Armed Forces! | RallyPoint

The outcome of the discussion "Concealed carry for CAC holders?" by [~222148:SGT Bernard Boyer III]. Below follows my skeleton letter to congress, based on the edits RP members have suggested to the 10 points. Anyone and everyone is welcome to edit and personalize the letter for their own use in writing to their congressional representatives. We sent a mass email on 3 January, the swearing in of the new congress, now it's a free for all. You...

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 5:12 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 05:12:11 -0400

MSgt Bj Jones, PO2 William Allen Crowder, Capt Richard I P. Cpl Dennis F., COL Vincent Stoneking, SGT Private RallyPoint Member, TSgt Hunter Logan, TSgt Tim (lj) Littlejohn, SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA, MSG Tom Earley, SFC Private RallyPoint Member, MSG(P) Robert Brostoski, Capt Private RallyPoint Member, COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM, SFC Private RallyPoint Member, LTC Stephen C., MAJ Private RallyPoint Member, SSG (ret) William Martin, SPC(P) Lisa Carlisle, SFC Jerry Crouch, Ed.D., TSgt Joshua Copeland, PO2 Stephen Brinkley (Scott), SGM Erik Marquez, CW5 Private RallyPoint Member,
Thank you all for taking the time to add to this conversation. As I have read more and looked into not only the Military bases shootings, but shootings in general, I still don't know how any of the proposals for registration will help.
I strongly believe that the 2nd Amendment is still very much applicable to today, and that law abiding citizens not only have the right to be armed, but have a moral obligation to be so. Of course, there are those either immature, or otherwise not competent to be trusted with such, but society as a whole will self correct as necessary.
I have POWs, will always have POWs, and will train and equip my family members with the same.

Response by CH (COL) Geoff Bailey made Apr 28 at 2015 7:12 AM

CH (COL) Geoff Bailey — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 07:12:36 -0400

Absolutely opposed. That registry can be shared with local law enforcement and subsequently used to grant a search warrant for weapons deemed illegal by local municipalities/states.

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Apr 28 at 2015 7:58 AM

LTC Stephen C. — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 07:58:43 -0400

LTC Private RallyPoint Member, I am opposed to such registration.

Response by SSG John Erny made Apr 28 at 2015 11:29 AM

SSG John Erny — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:29:13 -0400

Registering soldiers privately owned weapons will not stop a nut job from getting a weapon and hurting people. It will also not stop some one from pulling a hadji and mixing up some chemicals from the local hardware store.

Response by SSgt Thomas Carney made Oct 22 at 2015 2:33 PM

SSgt Thomas Carney — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:33:48 -0400

It will solve nothing. The biggest problem is NOT weapon registration, the biggest problems are making bases gun-free zones and letting Mohamedans into the military.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Nov 12 at 2015 10:39 AM

1LT Aaron Barr — Thu, 12 Nov 2015 10:39:43 -0500

Not a fan; I trust no branch of government, from the local school board to the Feds, having a list of gunowners. Moreover, per Haynes v. U.S., people legally barred from possessing a firearm cannot be prosecuted for failing to register a weapon as doing so would violate their 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Response by Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2019 5:31 PM

Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Mar 2019 17:31:51 -0500

Damn shame, all my firearms were lost in a recent boating accident...

Response by SSgt Thomas Carney made Apr 25 at 2019 6:33 PM

SSgt Thomas Carney — Thu, 25 Apr 2019 18:33:01 -0400

Bullcrap like this overreacting garbage is why I am so glad I got out when I did. The REAL PROBLEM wasn't unregistered weapons, it was MILITARY PEOPLE made unable to shoot back. If you're going to trust them in war, trust them in peace.

Response by SGT Thomas Heinold made Apr 29 at 2019 12:24 AM

SGT Thomas Heinold — Mon, 29 Apr 2019 00:24:19 -0400

Not enforceable, Contrary to the Constitution
The judges are bound to rule in favor of the contract holder (you) post facto law null and void too