6
6
0
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/
Your thoughts?
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/01/23/fort-hood-lopez-shooting/20650031/
Weapons
Shooting (Sport)
Gun Control
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 32
13
13
0
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.
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.
(13)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
that same attempt was made in Alaska a few years after I PCS'ed.. the commander also attempted to tell those who could legally carry a concealed weapon off post, that they were forbidden from doing so ,, because he said so. That "policy" did not stand long and was universally ignored in any case.
(7)
(0)
SSG (ret) William Martin
"tell those who could legally carry a concealed weapon off post, that they were forbidden from doing so" The first thing idiots want to do is to disarm the innocent and the law abiding citizens. It is the basic knee jerker response.
(4)
(0)
9
9
0
MSgt Bj Jones, PO2 William Allen Crowder, Capt Richard I P. Cpl Dennis F., COL Vincent Stoneking, SGT (Join to see), TSgt Hunter Logan, TSgt Tim (lj) Littlejohn, SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA, MSG Tom Earley, SFC (Join to see), MSG(P) Robert Brostoski, Capt (Join to see), COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM, SFC (Join to see), LTC Stephen C., MAJ (Join to see), SSG (ret) William Martin, SPC(P) Lisa Carlisle, SFC Jerry Crouch, Ed.D., TSgt Joshua Copeland, PO2 Stephen Brinkley (Scott), SGM Erik Marquez, CW5 (Join to see),
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.
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.
(9)
(0)
MSgt Bj Jones
Registration of weapons has never helped and never will. It's simply a way for the Government to have more control over its people. When your weapons are registered, the powers that be know where to find them. We also have POWs. My home state, PA is an open carry state. Texas, where my husband and I live now is concealed carry, but Gov Abbott is pushing to allow open carry. If open carry passes, our concealed carry permits will become carry licenses. People forget the 2nd Amendment doesn't give us the right to keep and bear arms; it protects our right to keep and bear arms.
(0)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
Criminals and mentally ill do not obey laws, rules and regulations .. making new gun control laws, rules and regulations will not reduce crimes
(4)
(0)
SFC Vernon McNabb
Ditto! SGM Erik Marquez Choosing to live off post, I am afforded certain luxuries that those living on post do not get. That said, I do not believe forcing off post residents to register their weapons will do anything positive for anyone. It's just another tactic used by "Big Brother" to create a demographic.
(4)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
You said it, all of us who obey the law would of course do the right thing if a new law or regulation such as that passed. And those who are not doing to right thing now, will continue to not do the right thing. Enforcing all the many existing gun control laws and regulations is the key to making a difference.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
Lists do not keep crimes from not happening. It is just action for action sake.
(4)
(0)
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
Q11: What happens to the data provided on Form 4473?
Completed Forms 4473 are retained by the Federal firearms licensee (FFL). ATF does not, and never has, maintained an archive or other information repository on the race or ethnicity of firearm purchasers or licensees, and it has no intention to do so in the future. ATF may inspect individual Forms 4473 containing personally identifying information held by FFLs only for limited regulatory or law enforcement functions-specifically, during inspections, and in the course of investigations (for example, when tracing firearms linked to individual criminal investigations). Similarly, the FFL may use the demographic data to ensure proper identification or facilitate the background check process. There are some limited circumstances – for example when an FFL goes out of business – under which the Forms 4473 or information contained thereon is provided to ATF as required by statute. Even under these limited circumstances, ATF does not aggregate or centralize the demographic information contained on the form.
https://www.atf.gov/content/Firearms/firearms-industry/ATF-form-4473-FAQs#Q11-4473
Completed Forms 4473 are retained by the Federal firearms licensee (FFL). ATF does not, and never has, maintained an archive or other information repository on the race or ethnicity of firearm purchasers or licensees, and it has no intention to do so in the future. ATF may inspect individual Forms 4473 containing personally identifying information held by FFLs only for limited regulatory or law enforcement functions-specifically, during inspections, and in the course of investigations (for example, when tracing firearms linked to individual criminal investigations). Similarly, the FFL may use the demographic data to ensure proper identification or facilitate the background check process. There are some limited circumstances – for example when an FFL goes out of business – under which the Forms 4473 or information contained thereon is provided to ATF as required by statute. Even under these limited circumstances, ATF does not aggregate or centralize the demographic information contained on the form.
https://www.atf.gov/content/Firearms/firearms-industry/ATF-form-4473-FAQs#Q11-4473
ATF Form 4473 FAQs | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
ATF received inquiries recently on the race and ethnicity questions on the ATF Form 4473. In an effort to provide individuals with the most up-to-date information, ATF has compiled a list of the most frequently asked questions and provided answers to those questions.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
LTC (Join to see), 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.
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.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
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".
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CSM Charles Hayden Passed 7/29/2025, my father served from 1966-1993, and in my memory I don't ever remember a conversation about registering weapons although I know we had some in the houses (on and off post) we lived.
Wonder if that was just my parents' decision or perhaps it wasn't as big an issue then as we have more recently?
Wonder if that was just my parents' decision or perhaps it wasn't as big an issue then as we have more recently?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google