PDA

View Full Version : Possesion and Ownership of Firearms in Military Housing


lhecker51
07-18-2011, 4:02 PM
I need some help here. I have been told that banning firearms from housing developments is against the law. Below is the regulation from the US Navy regarding firearms in your Bachelor Quarters. Bachelor quarters are housing for senior non-commissioned officers and officers. Is this not a violation of the law?
Military personnel that live int these quarters pay rent each month. The NRA had successfully challenged the over reach of the 4th ID commander in Ft Carson, Colorado back in the early 90's. How is it that this is happening again? Did the law change?

"Firearms

For those reporting to Naval Base San Diego, firearms are not allowed on the base at any time.

If you are assigned to live in bachelor's quarters and own a firearm; you need to make other storage arrangements. They will not be allowed in your vehicle as well. The penalty for violating the base firearm policy may include loss of base driving privileges and barring your vehicle from entering military installations."

jaq
07-18-2011, 6:07 PM
Wow. That is beyond f'd up. I can't help you too much here - other than bump your thread for visibility. I assume you're Active Duty. As such you are subject to the UCMJ (as you well know). That is more complex than I know.

I do know that as a raw Army recruit many years ago they issued me (and everyone else) a M16 & bayonet. But they refused to let us have any ammunition outside the range :chris:

FWIW I think the policy is downright un-American and I wish you the best of luck.

lhecker51
07-18-2011, 6:59 PM
Wow. That is beyond f'd up. I can't help you too much here - other than bump your thread for visibility. I assume you're Active Duty. As such you are subject to the UCMJ (as you well know). That is more complex than I know.

I do know that as a raw Army recruit many years ago they issued me (and everyone else) a M16 & bayonet. But they refused to let us have any ammunition outside the range :chris:

FWIW I think the policy is downright un-American and I wish you the best of luck.

Appreciate the comments! I have retired from the service and found the Navy's policy for San Diego when looking for information regarding the ship that my son is deployed on.

I read somewhere in these threads that they tried to do the same with public housing in San Francisco but were successfully litigated to overturn the policy because the housing receives federal funding and therefore cannot discriminate. I thought that the same concept may apply here.

There are some decisions that have been rendered in favor of military families being allowed to posses firearms in the on-base homes. The Navy's statement that one may not have a firearm in Bachelor quarters should be covered under the same protections because in both cases, they are individual quarters and not communal barracks.

The reason I am taking a stand here is that I am finding myself at odds with many of the DoD's policies regarding DADT, Smoking, 2nd amendment, and others. Our service members are a captive audience agenda driven social engineering. I am disgusted with it and will challenge it wherever it rears it's ugly socialist head.

As the General Washington, the first inspector general said: "When we assumed the soldier, we did not set aside the citizen".

Military communities are unique and isolated from public view and it is because of this that misguided policies have the perfect environment to incubate. One would not want to make waves for fear of career ending retribution. I am retired and therefore do not risk retribution other than having "No Desert" stamped on my meal card, so to speak.

emcon5
07-18-2011, 7:07 PM
When I was in, "Bachelor quarters" was a fancy way of saying "Barracks"

Base Housing was for families, and was essentially townhouses. When I was in, at my command, there were no limitations of firearms in base housing. In fact, one of my friends had an 01 FFL in base housing (before the zoning requirements were put in place).

lhecker51
07-18-2011, 7:23 PM
In the Army, Bachelor quarters are for senior non-coms and officers and are administered by the same department that governs family housing. They are not defined as barracks. Barracks come under the authority of the immediate command (Battalion, Company) and are not bachelor quarters due to their communal living conditions and common areas.

I would like to hear from anyone stationed at the San Diego Navy base that could assist me with the Navy's Bachelor Quarters governance as opposed to lower enlisted communal living arrangements. Does the same entity that manages family housing also manage the bachelor quarters for senior non-coms and officers?

Anchors
07-18-2011, 8:10 PM
This girl I dated in San Diego for a few weeks lived in this weird area in San Diego. We weren't far from Pacific Beach (that is all I remember, she worked in PB. I still lived in Arizona so it was all San Diego to me haha).

Her dad was a Navy Officer away on deployment and she said that her neighborhood was ALL military housing, but it was an actual house. She said everyone in the neighborhood were Navy families. It looked just like my neighborhood. This was a couple years ago. There was no gate or anything, but you did need a sticker on your car to park there, otherwise it looked normal.

I'm pretty sure her dad owned guns (I would venture to guess).

BigDogatPlay
07-18-2011, 8:40 PM
Public housing, HUD and the like, is IMO a different fish from military housing. The installation commander or OIC of the housing facility has the power to exclude firearms under his / her command authority. On base housing can also differ from off base. When I worked on a all service housing facility it was not on a regular base and was largely open to public access. Privately owned firearms were allowed and a couple of guys spent their off hours fixing guns out of their garages.

If the base commander of Naval Base San Diego has issued a command directive that no privately owned firearms are allowed on his base, then that's that, pretty much. If the OIC of the family housing, usually under Public Works, allows in his off base family housing that's on him. On base his housing would have to hew to the base commander's policy.

todd2968
07-18-2011, 8:49 PM
You live in the Barracks and you cannot have a weapon there, you live on base and that is base policy. I suggest a well maintained secured, storage, til you can live off base.

Tripper
07-18-2011, 8:53 PM
I had to check my firearms into the Battalion Armory, when i want to go to range, i had to check it/them out, could not return to housing with, had to check them in with duty/watch commander.
had a gun card for each of my firearms, just like the one for my m16/m249/m60/m203/m9.
one of my co-workers is retired navy, and his description was pretty much the same for navy permanent duty station, being checked at base armory, unless its a school base, then its like non-existent.

Tripper
07-18-2011, 8:55 PM
btw, at the time, i lived in barracks, when i married, i moved off-base, and took my guns with me, i can vaguely recall some buddies having firearms that lived in base housing, i cant say for certain if it was within the rules or not though.

epilepticninja
07-18-2011, 8:58 PM
When I was a single cat and lived in the dorms (barracks) we had to store our personal firearms at the armory. However the married peeps in base housing could keep their goods at their residence.

Peter.Steele
07-18-2011, 9:16 PM
Bachelor Quarters for the Navy are essentially barracks. I don't mean they're open-bay or anything - they're basically like a cheap hotel - but they're still barracks. Housing for transient personnel, TAD, etc.

Base housing =/= the Q. You can have firearms in base housing, but it has to be registered with the base cops. Should have seen the look on the face of the DOD cops when I laid a G3 on the counter to get registered ...

Anchors
07-19-2011, 2:57 AM
It bums me out that it elicited that kind of reaction and that the policy is how it is.
You can carry an M16/M9 in the sandbox and all around base, but god forbid you have a firearm for self-defense on base.
Yeah no one needs a firearm for self-defense on base, because no one has ever committed a crime against someone else there...

And again, oh no...the troop takes shooting seriously and has turned it into a regular hobby. That is a bad thing....? haha.

BrianRodela
07-19-2011, 9:25 AM
Unfortunately the Navy has always been behind the curve when it comes to firearms IMHO. As far as on base located quarters, the base commander has the authority to place restrictions and controls on firearms. Agree or not, they do have it. I myself have always found it funny how sailors have unbelievable responsibilities with multi million dollar equipment but when it comes to weapons, they are sometimes misstreated.
Off base housing is another subject all together and may have less restrictions associated with firearms storage. Incidents like the one at Fort Hood don't help our case either but I would suggest to service members to come up with a common sense solution and present it to the Base Commander with the input of Base Security. As it becomes more apparent that there is a large component of servicemember who enjoy shooting sports, they may take that into consideration. I myself shoot with the Navy Marksmanship Team and am always amazed when they ask "We have one?"

Write Winger
07-19-2011, 9:30 AM
Yeah, nobody needs to be armed on a military base... just look at Ft Hood...

Cobrafreak
07-19-2011, 9:40 AM
My Son's an Airman and they allow personal weapons on base.

AEC1
07-19-2011, 10:21 AM
here is the lowdown. I live in Gov't quaters and have wepons. On base FAMILY housing you can have them at home, but they must be registered with the armory and you have to notify when you transport. On base BEQ you have to store in the armory and chech them out when you need them as stated before. Gov't Family OFF BASE no restrictions.

curtisfong
07-19-2011, 11:14 AM
I am disgusted with it and will challenge it wherever it rears it's ugly socialist head.

From what I can tell, military family and on-base culture is exactly socialism.

ldsnet
07-19-2011, 11:35 AM
Sorry, but on base the CO makes the rules. Don't see it changing anytime soon either. As we fall under the UCMJ we can't say they are violating our Constitutional Rights (we basically surrendered them when we enlisted).

It could be worse:
For a few years, Alaska Army troops were prohibited from Lawful CCW even off base, (since been overturned by Congress!)
http://www.usarak.army.mil/policies/PUBS-ACROBAT/USARAK_Policies/CGCOFS%20POLICY%20STATEMENT%2018.pdf

We have a way to go, but chances of getting on base CCW are not looking good.

Sniper3142
07-19-2011, 12:13 PM
A couple of things...

Military personnal are under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), not the Constitution.

BEQ and most On Base housing are under the Base Commanders rules and regulations.

Military personnal living "on base" are not permitted to store or have firearms or weapons in their quarters, and are required to store all weapons either off base or in the Armory.

Yup... it sucks but that is the way it is.

NorCal Mtn Flyer
07-19-2011, 1:20 PM
I grew up living on Army bases around the world. In the early 70's my dad was based at Ft Ord, and I was competing in NRA matches all over Calif. I was allowed to keep my match rifles, pistols, and ammo at our house. I cannot say whether my dad had to get special permission to do so, or whether my firearms were registered with the base Provost Marshall's office. But I do know that I never had any problems going on/off base with them in either my parents or siblings vehicles.
I was also aware of several friends whose parents were avid hunters and had firearms at their respective homes on base.

To us, as teenagers who were around firearms all the time, it seemed totally natural to be able to keep weapons on a military base!

Granted, this was many moons ago!

curtisfong
07-19-2011, 3:42 PM
Yup... it sucks but that is the way it is.

Like I said, socialism. It is what it is.

Trailboss60
07-19-2011, 3:58 PM
Military personnal living "on base" are not permitted to store or have firearms or weapons in their quarters, and are required to store all weapons either off base or in the Armory.


Over at the 1911 forum some time back, some active duty guys shared their experiences with the armory storage...they walked in as the armory goons played with their guns, guns came up missing, expensive 1911's had been dropped, etc....

They all concluded that they were better off working out a deal with a friendly gun store or storing them at a friends off base housing.

It is wrong on so many levels that our military people are disarmed on base.:mad:

Back in the sixties, my dads Army buddy "Indian Jim" lived at Ft. Sill, he had an M2, a Thompson, and live hand grenades at his house...he was a pretty interesting guy. :D

Anchors
07-19-2011, 5:51 PM
You guys really think military personnel forfeit their Constitutional rights and aren't protected by it? What oath did you take? lol

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

United States v. Marcum, 60 M.J. 198 (Constitutional rights generally apply to members of the armed forces unless by their express terms, or the express language of the Constitution, they are inapplicable).

United States v. Elfayoumi [2008], 66 M.J. 354 (as a matter of due process, an accused has a constitutional right, as well as a regulatory right, to a fair and impartial panel).

United States v. Long, 64 M.J. 57 (the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects individuals, including servicemembers, against unreasonable searches and seizures

United States v. Cowgill, 68 M.J. 388 (the Fourth Amendment requires that no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause).

United States v. Stevenson, 66 M.J. 15 (while military service necessitates a reduced expectation of privacy in bodily fluids with respect to drug testing, servicemembers otherwise generally retain their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure).

United States v. Tippit, 65 M.J. 69 (the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution provides that the accused in a criminal prosecution shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial; in addition to the Sixth Amendment, timely processing also is subject to assessment under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment).

United States v. Teffeau, 58 MJ 62 (fundamental due process demands that an accused be afforded the opportunity to defend against a charge before a conviction on the basis of that charge can be sustained; few constitutional principles are more firmly established than a defendant’s right to be heard on the specific charges of which he is accused).

United States v. Dimberio, 56 MJ 224 (a defendant has a constitutional right to present a defense, including compulsory due process to compel the attendance of defense witnesses and the right to introduce their testimony into evidence).

United States v. Jones, 52 MJ 60 (the Fifth Amendment, Article 31(a) and (d), UCMJ, the warning requirements, and the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation have the combined effect of requiring that a criminal defendant be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense).

Denedo v. United States, 66 M.J. 114 (a military accused is entitled under the Constitution and Article 27(b), UCMJ, to the effective assistance of counsel).

United States v. Davis, 60 MJ 469 (the Sixth Amendment guarantees that a servicemember tried by court-martial will receive competent, effective legal representation; the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel at trials by court-martial is a fundamental right of servicemembers).

United States v. Neal, 68 M.J. 289 (the Due Process Clause of the Constitution protects an accused from conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged).

United States v. Ashby, 68 M.J. 108 (due process requires that a person have fair notice that an act is criminal before being prosecuted for it).

United States v. Adcock, 65 M.J. 18 (an essential expression of the Constitution’s due process guarantee is the protection of accused servicemembers from punishment prior to conviction and sentencing).

United States v. Richardson, 61 M.J. 113 (as a matter of due process, an accused has a constitutional right, as well as a regulatory right, to a fair and impartial panel).

United States v. Anderson, 68 M.J. 378 (if a court, contrary to the intent of Congress, imposes multiple convictions and punishments under different statutes for the same act or course of conduct, the court violates the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution).

Oh and Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163 (Men and women in the Armed Forces do not leave constitutional safeguards and judicial protection behind when they enter military service).

AEC1
07-19-2011, 8:53 PM
You guys really think military personnel forfeit their Constitutional rights and aren't protected by it? What oath did you take? lol



Oh and


Ryan you are correct we still maintain those rights in a criminal case, however we are also subject to the UCMJ and Non Judicial Punishment. I just had a sailor kicked out of the navy while quoting some of those cases. Skipper laughed and discharged him. Said you are right you have those rights but I am not trying you in a criminal court, if you dont like it request court marshall and take your chances woth that, then when you loose it is not just discharged but discharged with a Federal Felony convition... Take you pick.


I hate the SEA LAWYERS that only know half the truth. it gets so many young military members in so much trouble....

Gray Peterson
07-19-2011, 9:03 PM
Ryan you are correct we still maintain those rights in a criminal case, however we are also subject to the UCMJ and Non Judicial Punishment. I just had a sailor kicked out of the navy while quoting some of those cases. Skipper laughed and discharged him. Said you are right you have those rights but I am not trying you in a criminal court, if you dont like it request court marshall and take your chances woth that, then when you loose it is not just discharged but discharged with a Federal Felony convition... Take you pick.


I hate the SEA LAWYERS that only know half the truth. it gets so many young military members in so much trouble....

Which is nothing different than a plea-bargain system in the civilian world.

Quote from NJP wiki article:

Personnel are permitted to refuse NJP in favor of a court-martial; this might be done in cases where they do not feel their Commanding Officer will give them a fair hearing. But this option exposes them to a possible criminal court conviction. Navy and Marine Corps personnel assigned to or embarked aboard ship do not have the option of refusing NJP, nor can they appeal the decision of the officer imposing punishment; they may only appeal the severity of the punishment.

If you speak of a Skipper of a boat, that means the Navy guy is on board a ship, which means Article XV is the only thing available to said soldier in the first place unless the commanding officer himself wants a Court Martial.

You can quarrel with the exception but it still proves that the constitution still applies to members of the military. It may be less than civilian, but it is not gone entirely.

Anchors
07-19-2011, 9:10 PM
Ryan you are correct we still maintain those rights in a criminal case, however we are also subject to the UCMJ and Non Judicial Punishment. I just had a sailor kicked out of the navy while quoting some of those cases. Skipper laughed and discharged him. Said you are right you have those rights but I am not trying you in a criminal court, if you dont like it request court marshall and take your chances woth that, then when you loose it is not just discharged but discharged with a Federal Felony convition... Take you pick.


I hate the SEA LAWYERS that only know half the truth. it gets so many young military members in so much trouble....

Yeah. I know about the NJP system. I would probably take the Article 15 too unless I thought I had a sure thing win in CM.
I realize you give up many rights, but you are still protected by the Constitution.
In fact, it is an affirmative defense for refusing an order if that order violates the Constitution. Right?
I think a lot of the things that restrict your rights have to do with the contract you enter into with the government (i.e. all the stuff in this bunk is government property, therefore it isn't violating the 4th to search it. Don't like it? Don't sign up. Etc).

Which is nothing different than a plea-bargain system in the civilian world.

Quote from NJP wiki article:

Personnel are permitted to refuse NJP in favor of a court-martial; this might be done in cases where they do not feel their Commanding Officer will give them a fair hearing. But this option exposes them to a possible criminal court conviction. Navy and Marine Corps personnel assigned to or embarked aboard ship do not have the option of refusing NJP, nor can they appeal the decision of the officer imposing punishment; they may only appeal the severity of the punishment.

If you speak of a Skipper of a boat, that means the Navy guy is on board a ship, which means Article XV is the only thing available to said soldier in the first place unless the commanding officer himself wants a Court Martial.

You can quarrel with the exception but it still proves that the constitution still applies to members of the military. It may be less than civilian, but it is not gone entirely.

That is kind of what I was getting at.
I believe that exception has also been around since before we had the communication/transportation skills we do now. Where there was no telling when a ship would be back to drop off the accused. I might be off, but that is the vibe I get from it.

Gray Peterson
07-19-2011, 9:20 PM
That is kind of what I was getting at.
I believe that exception has also been around since before we had the communication/transportation skills we do now. Where there was no telling when a ship would be back to drop off the accused. I might be off, but that is the vibe I get from it.

Here's a better source:

Navy JAG NJP info (http://www.jag.navy.mil/legal_services/defense_services_addendum.htm#njp)

That's probably true but that is the current rules.

You folks should focus less on the service member's RKBA and focus more on the service member's civilian family members in those town houses that are located in military property, instead.

JJ_
07-19-2011, 9:22 PM
The Policy is drawn from CNRSW, formally COMNAVBASE. The Installation Commander, in this case, NAVSTA CO sets his policy based on the Regions.

However, I do believe you can get a weapons card so you can maintain your weapons in the Base Armory. Bit of a pain, but doable.

PS: Once you cross that blue line onto a Military Installation, you basically agree to give up some of your civil rights as referenced in the Internal Security Act.

Anchors
07-19-2011, 9:29 PM
Here's a better source:

Navy JAG NJP info (http://www.jag.navy.mil/legal_services/defense_services_addendum.htm#njp)

That's probably true but that is the current rules.

You folks should focus less on the service member's RKBA and focus more on the service member's civilian family members in those town houses that are located in military property, instead.

I see.
I think you are right in any case.
Using my example of the girl I dated and her dad above, if guns were banned it would be much easier to argue that her RKBA was being violated.

Funtimes
07-20-2011, 3:42 AM
A couple of things...

Military personnal are under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), not the Constitution.



This is the biggest load of crap I have ever read, and not true.

You are limited in your rights, but the constitution still applies. Go ask a Master at Arms if they can just search you and your property -- the answer would be no. They still need search authorizations (the military version of a warrant). You are not required to incriminate yours1elf ala Not required to report DUI's to your chain of command (5th Amendment).

DADT is being repealed under the constitution. The provision for sodomy was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL in prior court cases. Feel free to show me where the constitution says it stops applying. We give up somethings, and we sacrifice, but to say the constitution does not apply to us is garbage.

--- My background: Active Duty Navy E-6.


On topic though, a year ago I contacted NRA-ILA regarding this same issue (they said they were working on legislation, but were not really pushing the issue); there is also a forum post on it from me. There is some good thoughts for the "off" base military housing. However, most military housing now is ran by private entities. The later makes things a bit more sticky.