Troops must register off-base firearms

[ofitg]

Posted: September 30, 2010
12:55 am Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily



The U.S. Army command at Fort Hood, where Muslim psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly shot and killed 13 people and an unborn child, now is demanding that its soldiers confess whether they have any guns in their off-base homes, what kind of guns they are and what are their serial numbers.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Full story here - http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=209557

[jack404]

Here it comes ........

GUN CONTROL

[jack404]

Government can exert pressure upon its employee's , a soldier is seen by bureaucracy as employee's .

what population are government employee's this way ?

8%? 12% ?

at a 25% registration rate ( states that demand registration and now this)

thats the suggested pathway for gun control by UN experts

get peoples guns registered , once enough have joined the "non compulsory" registration then demand it from every one as a safety law

once all the legal guns are registered you can make folks surrender what you know they have with further laws of safety

then for the safety of your police they ban guns not locked in gun safes and do inspections , failing a inspection is loss of firearm rights and or a criminal conviction

then after a "Incident" they can say "gun buy back" for safety

your tax dollars buys your legal guns from you leaving only the illegal guns

if you own a house and car but own a non approved gun or are not allowed a gun you'll lose your house to the state, your car too .. do the time get out and have nothing ..

if you own nothing the cops dont seem to go as hard after you , strange eh

thats the UN , and its one of their lawyers in the white house

[hogger129]

Originally Posted by ofitg

Posted: September 30, 2010
12:55 am Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily



The U.S. Army command at Fort Hood, where Muslim psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly shot and killed 13 people and an unborn child, now is demanding that its soldiers confess whether they have any guns in their off-base homes, what kind of guns they are and what are their serial numbers.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Full story here - http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=209557

I would not tell them what I had. And if they took it to court, I'd plead the Fifth. Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it say you have to register privately owned firearms. I thought the only ones you had to paper/register were like the Title II stuff (full auto/NFA regulated).

[hogger129]

Originally Posted by jack404

Government can exert pressure upon its employee's , a soldier is seen by bureaucracy as employee's .

what population are government employee's this way ?

8%? 12% ?

at a 25% registration rate ( states that demand registration and now this)

thats the suggested pathway for gun control by UN experts

get peoples guns registered , once enough have joined the "non compulsory" registration then demand it from every one as a safety law

once all the legal guns are registered you can make folks surrender what you know they have with further laws of safety

then for the safety of your police they ban guns not locked in gun safes and do inspections , failing a inspection is loss of firearm rights and or a criminal conviction

then after a "Incident" they can say "gun buy back" for safety

your tax dollars buys your legal guns from you leaving only the illegal guns

if you own a house and car but own a non approved gun or are not allowed a gun you'll lose your house to the state, your car too .. do the time get out and have nothing ..

if you own nothing the cops dont seem to go as hard after you , strange eh

thats the UN , and its one of their lawyers in the white house

People just have to get to the point that they don't care what the consequences are and stop listening to government.

[Big ugly]

Originally Posted by hogger129

I would not tell them what I had. And if they took it to court, I'd plead the Fifth. Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it say you have to register privately owned firearms. I thought the only ones you had to paper/register were like the Title II stuff (full auto/NFA regulated).

There also aint anything in the Constitution that states that you have to pay Federal Taxes but you do anyway. You gonna just up and quit paying those too. Look, Capitalism has its pluses but when cpaitalism fails is when everyone gets their hands in the pie. Same thing holds true here. Its not the firearm that is causing the problem nor is it the owner. It is the guberment official that has made it his lifes goal for socialized government. You cant have a Socilized government when you have a population willing and able to defend itself. When you look at big government and socialized government it is all the same thing. The perks goes to the in crownd, the rest are just there to give money over. Socialism and Monarchy go hand in hand.

[Jackman]

I was in the Army 30 years ago FT Lewis, Wa. and all personal firearms were registered with command and for those that lived in the barracks the firearms had to be kept in the arms room.

[deadin]

As Jackman said, this is nothing new. It was that way 50 years ago when I fist joined the service.
If you would bother to read the article, you would see that the order was for commanders to "review" existing registrations, not "require" all private owned weapons be registered. Although they urge those with off-base weapons to register them, there is no requirement that they do so.

Once again WND is twisting the news and causing people to start shouting "The Sky is Falling, The sky is Falling."

[johnlives4christ]

time to fight

[Alpo]

Jackman, if personally owned firearms were registered with command, it was the ones on base. If you lived in base-housing, you told 'em what you had. The commander has total and complete control over the base. Same as by driving through the gates, you give up your 4th Amendment rights.

This is OFF BASE. Different animal.

[199er]

Posted by Deadin
As Jackman said, this is nothing new. It was that way 50 years ago when I fist joined the service.
If you would bother to read the article, you would see that the order was for commanders to "review" existing registrations, not "require" all private owned weapons be registered. Although they urge those with off-base weapons to register them, there is no requirement that they do so.

Likewise.................I retired from the Army in 1991. On every stateside post that I was stationed:

...if you lived on post, all your personal weapons had to be registered (including bows
& arrows).

... If you lived off post you did not have to register them.

... If you lived off post but wanted to use them on post then you had to register them before bringing them on the post (deer hunting, range shooting, etc).


I have some registered on Ft Jackson and some not registered there because I don't shoot them on post.

[ofitg]

Originally Posted by deadin

If you would bother to read the article, you would see that the order was for commanders to "review" existing registrations, not "require" all private owned weapons be registered. Although they urge those with off-base weapons to register them, there is no requirement that they do so.

Per the article -

But a soldier on base who contacted WND regarding the demand for information about off-base weapons said that's not the way it was presented to soldiers.

"At the end of the day formation … we were all required to state whether we owned a firearm. Then those that owned firearms were required to have their names put on a watch list that included registration status of the firearms and where the firearms were kept," wrote the soldier, who asked for anonymity to avoid retaliation.

"The list included those … who live off post in privately owned homes," the soldier confirmed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Trying to give the Army the benefit of a doubt - it's possible that some lower-level officer decided that the official order did not go far enough.

[jack404]

Here when they put in voluntary registration , they called it voluntary , but you lost your job if you did not comply as a public servant ( government employee)

then announced that the voluntary registration had such success they made it nation wide

they rewrote "voluntary" just like in the article , do it or else ...

[deadin]

we were all required to state whether we owned a firearm. Then those that owned firearms were required to have their names put on a watch list that included registration status of the firearms and where the firearms were kept,

Two different ways of interpreting this.

Do I own a firearm?... Yes.
So you're going to put me on a "watch list" because I do. I can understand that after the shootings on base. ( Or should I lie and say I don't own any? I find that lying to your CO is not a career enhancing move.)

What is the registration status of your firearms?
1. They are registered on base because I live in base housing.
2. They are registered on base because I live in the barracks (and they are checked into the armory,
3. They are registered on base because I occasionally bring them on base to the range.
Note: This is standard procedure and has been for years.

4. They are not registered on base because I keep them in private housing off base and never bring them on base.
Note: Nowhere does it say they must be registered, only what the status is.

If WND wants to sensationalize it, I guess it's just another way to sell papers. (or web advertising, whatever) There will always be those that believe whatever they print.

[ofitg]

Here are a couple of related stories -

http://www.newsmax.com/US/USFortHood...9/30/id/372084

http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/09/30...hood-suicides/

It seems that the Army is concerned about recent suicides at Ft. Hood, and that inquiries regarding privately-owned firearms are part of the program.

Deadin might be right - the WND article is the only one which specifically states that the Army is collecting serial numbers for weapons stored off post - perhaps WND was exaggerating? Perhaps we'll learn more about this in the coming days.

[Marlin T]

Originally Posted by deadin

Note: Nowhere does it say they must be registered, only what the status is.

It looks like you didn't see this link that was in the story above.
This isn't the first time and I'm sure it won't be the last.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100151
Fort Bliss soldiers told to register private guns

Document requires off-post troops to reveal ownership of firearms

Now just wait until one of these guys gets adjudicated, by a Doctor, as having PTSD.

SWAT team to the rescue for the "Well being" of the Army family.


>>>Army Regulation 600–20<<<

Chapter 3
Army Well-Being
3–3. Concept
b. An individual perspective. Well-being is a personal state, experienced by the individual. While there is no formula
for prescribing this personal state, individuals must be self-reliant in order for this experience to be positive.
Individuals are ultimately responsible for their own Well-being, but commanders are responsible for creating and
sustaining a climate that contributes positively to the lives of the Army Family, including Soldiers (active, reserve and
guard) retirees, veterans and DA civilians, and all their Families, The state of Well-being includes four basic
dimensions of individual life experience:
(1) The physical state centers on one’s health and sense of wellness, satisfying physical needs through a healthy
lifestyle.
(2) The material state centers on essential needs such as shelter, food, and financial resources.
(3) The mental state centers on basic needs to learn, grow, achieve recognition, and be accepted.
(4) The spiritual state centers on a person’s religious/philosophical needs, providing powerful support for values,
morals, strength of character, and endurance in difficult and dangerous circumstances.

[deadin]

Once again, the "information" is coming from WND, a source that I tend to equate with the supermarket tabloids who are infamous for "stretching" the truth in order to sell their rag.

[gdmoody]

I, personally, don't believe it. I retired in 1996, at one time in my career, I lived on base for several years and owned a minimum of 20 guns and was never asked anything about private ownership of anything.

I did have to and still have to register my car to get it on post. I keep a gun in my car at all times and I have never asked when I enter a post if I am carrying a gun. If I am required to register my car does that mean that they are going to start confiscating cars?

[hogger129]

Originally Posted by Big ugly

There also aint anything in the Constitution that states that you have to pay Federal Taxes but you do anyway. You gonna just up and quit paying those too. Look, Capitalism has its pluses but when cpaitalism fails is when everyone gets their hands in the pie. Same thing holds true here. Its not the firearm that is causing the problem nor is it the owner. It is the guberment official that has made it his lifes goal for socialized government. You cant have a Socilized government when you have a population willing and able to defend itself. When you look at big government and socialized government it is all the same thing. The perks goes to the in crownd, the rest are just there to give money over. Socialism and Monarchy go hand in hand.

If everybody just decided they weren't going to file income tax returns anymore, I bet they could get away with it. All through history, anytime the American people have stood together, we have gotten the job done haven't we? Isn't that how we created America in the first place?

[Alpo]

Originally Posted by Big ugly

There also aint anything in the Constitution that states that you have to pay Federal Taxes but you do anyway. You gonna just up and quit paying those too. Look, Capitalism has its pluses but when cpaitalism fails is when everyone gets their hands in the pie. Same thing holds true here. Its not the firearm that is causing the problem nor is it the owner. It is the guberment official that has made it his lifes goal for socialized government. You cant have a Socilized government when you have a population willing and able to defend itself. When you look at big government and socialized government it is all the same thing. The perks goes to the in crownd, the rest are just there to give money over. Socialism and Monarchy go hand in hand.

16th Amendment to the Constitution.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

[Shooter45]

It was ratified on February 3, 1913, long after the Constitution was written.

[Alpo]

Soooo, only the original Constitution is law? Women don't have the vote? Blacks are still slaves?

[thomas44]

I can't imagine the United States ever having a constitutional government again. To do this, we'd have to eliminate about 90% of the government beaurocracy and give control back to the states, which is where everything not enumerated in the constitution is SUPPOSED to be handled. Pinheads in D.C. and probably most citizens are unfamiliar with, or don't give a crap about the 10th amendment. There is no good reason our tax rate should be more than 2-5 % if our government was constitutional. Bottom line...the federal government is OUT OF CONTROL.

[3/2 STA SS]

Well look where it is FT Bliss. Hello. If it was any other base in the country where a shooting happened they would do the same thing. Reactive not proactive. Then again I kept my guns in my walllocker. That was a different time and era unfortunately.

[EDL]

I got stationed in San Antonio, Tx in 1995. Being married, my wife and I lived in an apartment. I was told, by my commander directly that if I had any guns I had to keep them in the arms room on base.

I refused. I was then told they needed a list of make, model and serial numbers of all my guns.

I refused again.

I was threatened with court martial and then I told them the guns are all my wife's guns and she just lets me use them. If they want to threaten her and demand a list, go right ahead, but be ready to find themselves in court.

I never heard another word about it.