PDA

View Full Version : Military personnel must register privately owned firearms.


Exiledviking
05-16-2009, 12:06 PM
Anyone seen this or heard of it? I got this from a good friend.


"NOW IT BEGINS...

Subject: Military personnel must register privately owned firearms.

ALL ACTIVE DUTY MEMBERS HEADS UP!!!!


Gentlemen,

I am an 11B currently assigned at Fort Campbell. I live off post, with my firearms (which I don't bring on post for any reason). A very frightening thing happened at work yesterday. I was ordered to fill out a list containing my firearm information. This included make, model, caliber, and serial number of all firearms I currently posses. In addition, I was also required to list registration information, location of all weapons individually, and information regarding any CCW permits I posses. If you are like me, then the people you work with know you have firearms. So I had to list at least some. I tried to talk to my 1sg (who is normally approachable through proper channels) to find out what this is for, and I was basically told, "I don't give a ! &@%, just put your info on the form." I don't know how high this goes, but I am hearing that this is going on in other units at Fort Campbell as well. It just seems a little coincidental to me that within 90 days: the most anti-firearm President in history is inaugurated, some of the nastiest anti-firearm laws are put on the table in Washington, and then the Army comes around wanting what amounts to a registration on all firearms, even if they are off post, and doesn't provide any reason or purpose as to why. I fear something really nasty is blowing in the wind here. I have been in almost 8 years, and never have any of my units asked for this information. If any of you out there have any info as to what all this crap is about please chime in. Otherwise consider yourself warned. I have already posted this on every other firearm forum I am a member of to get the word out.

Here it is folks:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y65/Exiledviking/image0011.jpg

end quote."

HunterJim
05-16-2009, 12:14 PM
This was stopped by a senior in the chain of command, and is no longer current.

jim

CavTrooper
05-16-2009, 12:34 PM
This was stopped by a senior in the chain of command, and is no longer current.

jim

Not only that but this is a dupe of a dupe. This "policy" was never a Military or Army policy just a local unit Commanders. Remember though, Military members sacrifice some rights when they volunteer to defend yours, until this policy is/was revoked, its 100 percent legal and I can actually understand why this may have been put into place.

xLusi0n
05-16-2009, 9:34 PM
Not all orders are considered legal and not all policies have been ran by JAG. Unless the weapons are on base, there's no legal backing.

MrSlippyFist
05-16-2009, 9:37 PM
That's a fake.

Exiledviking
05-16-2009, 9:39 PM
Thank you, gentlemen! I appreciate it.

Gp100
05-17-2009, 1:07 AM
Why do you think this is a fake? Please state your facts. The military implements test before they go all the way, just look at the navy new uniform, or the 6.8 rifle they start with little test.

squatting_caveboy
05-17-2009, 1:51 AM
check snopes.com before you send stuff out like this - saves bandwidth and patience

Librarian
05-17-2009, 1:51 AM
Why do you think this is a fake? Please state your facts. The military implements test before they go all the way, just look at the navy new uniform, or the 6.8 rifle they start with little test.

The memorandum is real; the implication of the email is false.

see Snopes http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/campbell.asp

nicki
05-17-2009, 11:59 AM
When Alaska went to true free carry a few years back, the Army put out a memo informina Soldiers stationed in Alaska that it would be Army policy to prohibit them from carrying personal arms off base.

Base commanders have alot of leeway and in the Military even if you win against your CO, you loose.

Sorry, that is the way the military is. One of the reasons I did not reenlist.


Nicki

ST5MF
05-17-2009, 12:48 PM
When Alaska went to true free carry a few years back, the Army put out a memo informina Soldiers stationed in Alaska that it would be Army policy to prohibit them from carrying personal arms off base.

Base commanders have alot of leeway and in the Military even if you win against your CO, you loose.

Sorry, that is the way the military is. One of the reasons I did not reenlist.


Nicki

The ARMY has a long history of being really F***** UP! The leadership is a complete joke.

I once met a guy who was a "Major" in the Army. He had introduce himself with "I am a Major" in the Army. LIKE I GIVE A FLYING F***! The guy was a complete "LOSER" to boot. He is a reflection of the Army leadership across the board.

The Marine Corps leadership is a 180 degrees out from the Army. They do a MUCH better job screening and preparing their officers with a very limited budget.

Plus the USMC is a very gun centric organization.

cracktheskye
05-17-2009, 12:54 PM
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y65/Exiledviking/image0011.jpg

end quote."

It looks like it was signed in blood.

MrSlippyFist
05-17-2009, 12:58 PM
Why do you think this is a fake? Please state your facts. The military implements test before they go all the way, just look at the navy new uniform, or the 6.8 rifle they start with little test.

It lacks the signature block of the issuing authority, the legal verbage of the soldiers effected, the authority under the UCMJ that the 'memorandum' is authorized under, etc.

Also, since when did a policy decision at any army command level require the affected soldier to sign it agreeing???

Regardless, it would be SOP, not whatever gobblygook this is.

Doheny
05-17-2009, 1:02 PM
This is at least the 3rd time this has been posted.

CavTrooper
05-17-2009, 5:17 PM
When Alaska went to true free carry a few years back, the Army put out a memo informina Soldiers stationed in Alaska that it would be Army policy to prohibit them from carrying personal arms off base.

Base commanders have alot of leeway and in the Military even if you win against your CO, you loose.

Sorry, that is the way the military is. One of the reasons I did not reenlist.


Nicki

Sorry Niki,that is not and never has been ARMY policy, it is the POST COMMANDERS policy. Compare that to the post Commanders policy at Ft Stewart while I was there, which was, if you are a CCW holder you must unload your weapon and put it on the seat or the dashboard when you come on base.

ChuckBooty
05-17-2009, 5:51 PM
I just wouldn't do it. Maybe the gun belongs to your wife...

IrishJoe3
05-17-2009, 7:58 PM
The ARMY has a long history of being really F***** UP! The leadership is a complete joke.

I once met a guy who was a "Major" in the Army. He had introduce himself with "I am a Major" in the Army. LIKE I GIVE A FLYING F***! The guy was a complete "LOSER" to boot. He is a reflection of the Army leadership across the board.

The Marine Corps leadership is a 180 degrees out from the Army. They do a MUCH better job screening and preparing their officers with a very limited budget.

Plus the USMC is a very gun centric organization.


*yawn* cluelesss......

MrSlippyFist
05-17-2009, 7:59 PM
*yawn* cluelesss......

Yup.

Dieseldog
05-17-2009, 8:03 PM
Wow, i remember when we could keep our personal firearms in the ship's armory.

CavTrooper
05-17-2009, 8:47 PM
Plus the USMC is a very gun centric organization.

Not even gonna address the first section of your post.

Do you happen to know what the POW policy for Marines living on Camp Pendleton both in the barracks and in housing and how this "gun-centric" organizations policies differ from those on an Army installation?

How about how many rifle ranges are open to Marines and Civilians to utilize their POWs and the times and under what conditions they are avalible?

How about hunting policies on Camp Pendleton?

Do you know how these policies differ from those on say.. Ft Knox, KY, Ft Stewart, GA or any other Army installation?

ChuckBooty
05-18-2009, 6:25 AM
^^

He'll have a much different perspective by the time he makes E2 or E3. It's the 'boots' that get like this.

motorhead
05-18-2009, 10:19 AM
this is bogus. supposedly an "error" by the author. it was meant to refer only to private arms on base. the author was "counseled" for his mistake and retracted it. this is jusyt another chain letter making the rounds.

NiteQwill
05-18-2009, 8:31 PM
www.tineye.com

For all of your dupes of dupes of dupes pleasure.

Noboundaries
05-18-2009, 9:08 PM
I remember moving into base housing at NAS (Naval Air Station) Lemoore, CA in 1980. I had to list all firearms in my possession with Base Security, but that was on base so that was expected.

If you lived off base, the only firearms you had to notify base security about were those you would bring on base on occasion. Most of the pilots I knew had their own pistols or revolvers so they filled out the form to avoid the hassle of checking in the weapons every time they were going to the range or taking one flying.

ST5MF
05-19-2009, 11:17 AM
Not even gonna address the first section of your post.

Do you happen to know what the POW policy for Marines living on Camp Pendleton both in the barracks and in housing and how this "gun-centric" organizations policies differ from those on an Army installation?

How about how many rifle ranges are open to Marines and Civilians to utilize their POWs and the times and under what conditions they are avalible?

How about hunting policies on Camp Pendleton?

Do you know how these policies differ from those on say.. Ft Knox, KY, Ft Stewart, GA or any other Army installation?

Comparing a base in CA to one in the United States is absurd. You know as well as I do the Hippie Liberal Fascist Nazi Nature preserve gastapo is always crawling up the military A** at every range and base throughout CA. Even off the coast on some of the island(s) utilized by the military "regulators" are there to impede training; they would like nothing more than to have every military installation in CA closed down. Funny thing is they want the revenue the military brings but none of its realities.

I have always perceived the USMC as a much more professional organization down range and conus. I had the "displeasure" of having to go through "Airborne" at Ft. Benning. I remember seeing a "soldier" dragging his weapon on the ground with is head down in "feel sorry for myself mode" and not a single NCO squaring the kid away. You will never see that in the CORPS.

Apologize in advance as this thread has moved way off topic...

MrSlippyFist
05-19-2009, 11:19 AM
Comparing a base in CA to one in the United States is absurd. You know as well as I do the Hippie Liberal Fascist Nazi Nature preserve gastapo is always crawling up the military A** at every range and base throughout CA. Even off the coast on some of the island(s) utilized by the military "regulators" are there to impede training; they would like nothing more than to have every military installation in CA closed down. Funny thing is they want the revenue the military brings but none of its realities.

I disagree. The same **** happened at the OTC in Idaho where there were a few species that needed to be protected. It happens everywhere, not just hippy capitol USA.

turbosbox
05-19-2009, 2:47 PM
The Army does have some good people, I have met them.

jwest
05-19-2009, 3:13 PM
I agree with turbosbox - so does the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard and even the Merchant Marine. Ask anybody in any of those organizations if the chain of command never went FUBAR. People make mistakes - common sense prevails over time.

fly4vino
05-25-2009, 4:34 PM
The problem with the approach taken by snopes is that it fails the test of reason. Snopes agrees that the letter to the troops is in fact the real deal but then argues it was only to increase safety


If the "purpose" was to know what types of weapons the soldiers had so as to give them training, why did the authorities need to know the sn and location of the weapon and to know if the owner had a concealed weapon carry permit.

The lameness of the excuse is apparent from this alone.

One would belie that shopes provides shelter and a reason for being for recycled members of the Clinton ("it depends on the meaning of is") administration.

Librarian
05-25-2009, 10:49 PM
The problem with the approach taken by snopes is that it fails the test of reason. Snopes agrees that the letter to the troops is in fact the real deal but then argues it was only to increase safety


If the "purpose" was to know what types of weapons the soldiers had so as to give them training, why did the authorities need to know the sn and location of the weapon and to know if the owner had a concealed weapon carry permit.

The lameness of the excuse is apparent from this alone.

One would belie that shopes provides shelter and a reason for being for recycled members of the Clinton ("it depends on the meaning of is") administration.

The snopes explanation resolves to 'it was a screw up by one unit commander'. Screw-ups quite often sound lame when one tries to explain them - thus the existence of "no excuse, sir!"

kermit315
05-25-2009, 11:45 PM
why wont this thread die like the last 5?

ETA: Yes, I get the irony.