Troops must register off-base firearms

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by ofitg, Oct 1, 2010.

  1. ofitg

    ofitg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,446
    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
  2. jack404

    jack404 Former Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,592
    Location:
    Australia
    Here it comes ........

    GUN CONTROL
  3. jack404

    jack404 Former Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,592
    Location:
    Australia
    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
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2010
  4. hogger129

    hogger129 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,151
    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).
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2010
  5. hogger129

    hogger129 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,151
    People just have to get to the point that they don't care what the consequences are and stop listening to government.
  6. Big ugly

    Big ugly New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,682
    Location:
    Knoxville Tennessee
    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.
  7. Jackman

    Jackman New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    Messages:
    446
    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.
  8. deadin

    deadin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,100
    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."
  9. johnlives4christ

    johnlives4christ Former Guest

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2008
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Kentucky
  10. Alpo

    Alpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,315
    Location:
    NW Florida
    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.
  11. 199er

    199er New Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Messages:
    627
    Location:
    Columbia SC
    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.
  12. ofitg

    ofitg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,446
    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.
  13. jack404

    jack404 Former Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,592
    Location:
    Australia
    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 ...
  14. deadin

    deadin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,100
    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.
  15. ofitg

    ofitg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,446
    Here are a couple of related stories -

    http://www.newsmax.com/US/USFortHoodSuicides/2010/09/30/id/372084

    http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/09/3...cuses-spotlight-on-recent-fort-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.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum The Troops have it right, the silence says so. Oct 28, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum NY safe act artical a must read Jan 12, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum 14 Year Old NH Girl Testifies at gun rally - MUST READ! Mar 9, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum NSSF fact sheets - a must read! Mar 2, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Here is the Gun we must rescue Jun 7, 2012

Share This Page