Servicemember's 2A Protection Act

[Herknav]

S.3388: A bill to protect the rights under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of... OpenCongress

Text of the bill:

S.3388 - A bill to protect the rights under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of members of the Armed Forces and civilian employees of the Department of Defense by prohibiting the Department of Defense from requiring the registration of privately-owned firearms, ammunition, or other weapons not stored in facilities owned or operated by the Department of Defense, and by prohibiting the Department of Defense from infringing on the right of individuals to lawfully acquire, possess, own, carry, or otherwise use privately owned firearms, ammunition, or other weapons on property not owned or operated by the Department of Defense.

Please ask your Senator to support this legislation proposed by Sen Inhofe of OK. I have talked before about how the USARAK commander has banned carry of weapons for all Army troops in AK. Others have discussed off-base weapons registration schemes. This bill may help curb some of the silliness put in place by DoD.

Even if it doesn't affect you or anyone you know, please take some time to support the troops.

Thanks,
Herk

 

[The Last Standing Knight]

I cannot speak for now, but when I was in in the 1980's it was ILLEGAL to have an unauthorized weapon on base, at base functions, or in base housing.
If I remember the requirements for owning a private firearm involved going through the chain of command, registering the weapon with the Provost Marshal's office, then after going through all that, it was to be kept locked up in the armory...you just couldn't get to it anytime you wanted. The system was designed to "discourage" firearms ownership with the added philosophy that "we will issue you any weapon you rate..."
The rule was seldom enforced, but woe be onto you if you got caught.
In the late 80's, a Marine was playing with a 357 revolver in his BEQ...the weapon went off and killed a Marine walking by...as a result, a MASSIVE shakedown occurred that resulted in even KaBar's having to be surrendered to the armory.
I'm sorry to say, but unless times have significantly changed in this regard, I figure this has NO CHANCE of passing at all. While everyone is supposed to be protected by the Constitution, service personnel are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which while based SOMEWHAT on the Constitution, is a completely different animal.
A lot of commanders, officially or not, don't want the troops having personal weapons...and usually for good reasons.

 

[ASA335]

Retired Army here, and…

True, on base there is tight control and I somewhat understand (though it now seems excessive), but this bill pertains to off base possession and use. I've never understood the need for a base commander to limit firearms possession and use off base. Telling a service member that resides off base that they can't have a firearm in their own home off base or have a CHL for off base use just doesn't sound right to me, especially since most service members living off base are married (their spouse off base isn't subject to the UCMJ, so how does a commander figure the service member can't have a house gun when the spouse can?).

I'm in favor of this bill. Not too long ago a base commander up in Alaska issued an order prohibiting soldiers off base possession and (if I recall correctly) even prohibited CHL use – I felt it was wrong then and I still do.

 

[oldRoger]

Congress to the Military; Gays Yes!------------Guns, No!

 

[DonD]

I'll admit to not knowing much about the particulars here.

In my 21 yrs in the Navy, no CO or for that matter no one in any part of the Navy chain of command ever said zip to me about firearms. I lived in base quarters 3 times, NS Newport (TAD/school), NAS Pt. Mugu and NS Guantanamo Bay before it became a penal colony and at most all I had to do was tell security what I had at home, other than that they didn't give a rip. Certainly didn't care what I had in off base residences.

Certainly, knowing what problems young troops can get into in barracks/quarters, I'd be reluctant to side with personally owned firearms there but in family quarters, no issue. Don

 

[Herknav]

This bill does NOTHING to change anything on-base.

It is to prohibit them from enacting silly rules off-base. USARAK GO #0-20 prohibits CC and loaded vehicle carry in "populated areas." GO#0-17 prohibits a loaded firearm in the living quarters of any military member.

 

[The Last Standing Knight]

Remember...

...all of us that have been in the service know that armed services personnel are considered the property of the United States Government. That means on and off duty, on leave, liberty, etc. for as long as we wear the uniform.
No, I don't agree that the military can or should prohibit soldiers, sailors or Marines from owning or possessing personal weapons in their own homes off base and I am not debating that here. However, a matter of discipline is involved. If the military gives a written order against personnel having personal weapons, even in their own homes, then you'd best keep any you have to yourself and be prepared to accept the consequences if you are found to have one. I had a S&W M25-5 revolver when I lived on base with my wife. I kept my mouth shut...and had no problems. But I knew that if I got caught...well....
We all gave up some rights when we raised our right hands at enlistment. Heck, even ownership of an automobile, while allowed with "difficulty", was "highly discouraged" below the rank of Corporal.
The home may be out of military jurisdiction, but who ever lives in that home as a member of the armed forces, is not.

 

[7shooter]

Disarming the military and their bases will surely result in the same kind of carnage that happens in civilian gun free zones through out the world. I just finished John Lotts third edition of " More guns, Less Crime ". Lott has solid empirical evidence of criminals selecting gun free zones for mass killings ( think Ft. Hood ). The shooters appear to plan on dying so typical law enforcement reaction times are generally futile. Only armed citizens or in this case armed military personell can lessen the harm. I think that if America cannot trust its military who can we trust. I'm not optimistic that rationality will prevail on this issue.

 

[Herknav]

If the military gives a written order against personnel having personal weapons, even in their own homes, then you'd best keep any you have to yourself and be prepared to accept the consequences if you are found to have one.

This bill would (in theory) negate their ability to do that.

The home may be out of military jurisdiction, but who ever lives in that home as a member of the armed forces, is not.

Actually, the USARAK commander has stated that no one (civ or mil) living in the same house as a military member is allowed to store their firearm loaded.

As far as being responsible for good order and discipline, how about being responsible for their safety?

 

[The Last Standing Knight]

Safety of the troops and their families SHOULD be a top priority for ANY commander worth his or her salt...but in truth, it isn't always case.
Hernav, I understand where you are going with this and I agree with you. But no matter whether it is right or wrong or even illegal to a point, an order is an order.
Actually, it seems kind of an oxymoron that in the ARMED forces, this should even be an issue considering firearms are the basic tool of ALL who serve regardless of billet or MOS.

 

[DonD]

This bill does NOTHING to change anything on-base.

It is to prohibit them from enacting silly rules off-base. USARAK GO #0-20 prohibits CC and loaded vehicle carry in "populated areas." GO#0-17 prohibits a loaded firearm in the living quarters of any military member.

I understand that, I was simply commenting on others and the idea of having to store firearms in the armory and/or petty restrictions imposed on firearms owners. But....your own post suggests a ban on all residential areas "GO#0-17 prohibits a loaded firearm in the living quarters of any military member." The Army commander who imposed that has cranial/rectal inversion and, in my opinion, has grossly overstepped his authority. Don

 

[Herknav]

DonD--Understood. It wasn't specifically directed at you. Post #2 and most of #3 discussed on base. I wanted to make sure everybody understood what the bill did and did not do.

 

[clipper1]

I wonder how well off tiny Switzerland would be today if they had such a stupid rule? Does this rule also apply to those of higher rank?
It can dangerous if living anywhere in Alaska where bears (both kinds) are hardly afraid of humans. Moose can be very beligerant as well.

 

[DonD]

DonD--Understood. It wasn't specifically directed at you. Post #2 and most of #3 discussed on base. I wanted to make sure everybody understood what the bill did and did not do.

Slightly off topic. I'm retired military and worked at Sandia National Laboratories at Kirtland AFB for 17 yrs following that. KAFB is NOT firearms friendly.

I tried to talk the base commander into allowing innocent passage in order to go to work and then go to the range after work. My argument included the fact that I had held a Top Secret or higher clearance for over 30 yrs at that time, my background was far better known than any of his security people and I had a CCW license. Made not a whit of difference, no dice. You get caught on base with an unloaded firearm in your cars trunk and you lose your base priviledges for a full year!

You cannot use the range that the security forces use under ANY circumstances. Strange to me to be so obsessively anti gun when the use of deadly force is the reason for the existence of the military. PC in the military really sucks. Don

 

[OLDGUNMAN]

Stupid people should not breed. They grow up to be General's and politicians.

 

[AZretired]

Slightly off topic. I'm retired military and worked at Sandia National Laboratories at Kirtland AFB for 17 yrs following that. KAFB is NOT firearms friendly.

I tried to talk the base commander into allowing innocent passage in order to go to work and then go to the range after work. My argument included the fact that I had held a Top Secret or higher clearance for over 30 yrs at that time, my background was far better known than any of his security people and I had a CCW license. Made not a whit of difference, no dice. You get caught on base with an unloaded firearm in your cars trunk and you lose your base priviledges for a full year!

You cannot use the range that the security forces use under ANY circumstances. Strange to me to be so obsessively anti gun when the use of deadly force is the reason for the existence of the military. PC in the military really sucks. Don

I trained at the DOE range on Kirtland on and off for years. We were just local PD with no authority on base and we never had any problem. This was both pre and post 9/11 but probably a different post commander.
When I was in the Army in the 70's they didn't care what firearms you had as long as you kept them off post.

 

[ASA335]

During my service (1972 - 1994) it wasn't much of a problem at any of the bases I served on, even at 3 of my over seas assignments. Firearm on base, have it registered on base (they returned the registration card if you were reassigned or were no longer interested in having that firearm on base). Lived in the barracks, keep the firearm(s) in the arms room. Lived in other on-base quarters, you could keep it (them) in your quarters. Off base, no Army rules.

I once had about 14 personal privately owned firearms in the unit armsroom. Another time, living in on-base housing, my wife stored her National Gaurd issued National Match M14 in the same gun locker we kept our privately owned firearms in. Yet another time, living by myself in senior NCO quarters, I had a M1 Garand, M1911A1 and 4 or 5 other firearms (all personally owned), plus ammo, powder and primers in my locker. No violations, no problems.

Times have changed.

Peace,

 

[JBONES]

I just retired after 24 years and have never heard of such abuse of authority by a commander, in no way is this lawful order and in no way are any of his Soldiers bound under the UCMJ for this unlawful order. He is simple an anti-nut wearing a uniform. This Senate bill is not required; The DOD has no restrictions on military personal in the owning, possession, carrying of firearms and ammunition in the United States of America. His bosses need to simply put this moron back in line.

I have never heard a commander of mine ever even hinting to such an abuse of power. While I had to follow DOD, Navy and base instructions pertaining to on base, off base and especially me privately owned residence is just not an area they control. A good part of my career I was subject to anti state of California law, but once I escaped (transferred) to Washington State (A Shall Issue State) I carried concealed and openly religiously, for the last 4 years before I retired, to include off base open carry reenlistments.

If you are breaking local, state or federal laws and the commander finds out well then your busted, but, if can legally own and carry a firearm under those same laws the commander is issuing an unlawful order and can pack sand.

If anyone tells you the US Constitution does not apply to service members let them know they are dead wrong. The UCMJ is part of Federal Law and passed by Congress in accordance with the US Constitution.

ARTICLE 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.
ARTICLE 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
Does not fit 90 or 92; order is unlawful
ARTICLE 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Does not fit 134; no "disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces" has taken place as you lawfully possess and carry in accordance with local, state, and federal law.

Anyone that says Members of the Armed Focres should not be allowed to own and carry should move out of counrty.

 

[Herknav]

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/20...ess_blocks.php

I'm not sure if this is the exact same bill, but we got what we wanted.