◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

As I pointed out in yesterday’s anti-ATF post, the The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 specifically forbids the federal government from maintaining a database of firearms sales. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ eTrace system is a clear and ongoing transgression of the Act. And now the U.S. Army’s getting into the act. (Or out of it.) “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.” wnd.com says the Army says it’s all perfectly legal . . .

“In this order, battalion commanders were directed to review all privately owned weapons registration. There is not a requirement to register off-post weapons but soldiers are encouraged to do so,” [Christopher Haug Sr., the chief of media relations for Fort Hood] said.

“Commanders and leaders inquire about access to weapons as part of the health and welfare inspection. This is in accordance with Army Regulation 600-20, Army Command Policy dated March 18, 2008,” he said.

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.

It’s seems astounding that the United States Army doesn’t trust soldiers on a military base to carry a sidearm. As TTAG writer and Afghanistan vet Martin Albright points out, soldiering is a rifle-oriented biz. Even so, the U.S. Army has no more right to keep tabs on its soldiers’ privately held weapons than the ATF has a right to keep a permanent record of yours. Fort Hood massacre or not, let’s not forget who are the good guys and who are the bad guys and why the good guys fight in the first place.

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

11 COMMENTS

  3. I thought that Sen. Inhofe (R–Oklahoma) has a bill that took care of this crap??? It was supposed to stop the brass from making lists and all that.

  4. aren’t US “army bases” federal property?

    if so: then, the recent SCotUS decisions on the Second Amendment must apply!

    looks like it’s time for another SCotUS challenge!

  5. While federal law may prohibit 'keeping firearms lists', it also allows (via the UCMJ) a huge amount of authority over the personal lives of soldiers. You are never off duty.

    I'm a Gulf War 1 vet who deployed from Fort Hood. While I'm a bit out of the loop regarding current policies, from what I recall, they were often petty and selectively enforced. I was a grunt assigned to a Mech Infantry Battalion Headquarters Company, so I heard stories from my battalion and others.

    Examples, from my era, of command influence over solders' "private homes":

    Soldiers with marital issues were often restricted from going to their privately owned homes.
    Often, non-married soldiers were prohibited from living off post (in a private home/apartment). (And since personally owned firearms were prohibited from the barracks (which were subject to inspection anytime), owning firearms was effectively impossible).
    On post, your person and private car were subject to inspection/search anytime.
    "Wellness" inspections of soldiers' off post homes, while not common, were conducted by command.

    In such an environment, asking soldiers to list their firearms is hardly surprising.

    There was some interesting blowback at times. I recall the issue of a soldier's paralegal spouse who owned the off post home. She didn't much care for Army contact (outside of her husband). I don't know what set her off. It could have been command "visits", command wives' check-up phone calls, or command "suggestions" that she participate more in unit events. Fed up, she responded with a 1/2 dozen restraining orders against assorted soldiers in her husband's unit and the wife of her husband's commander.

    Anyway, such control-freakism is part and parcel of many military units. Firearms lists? Meh, they're noise compared to every other component of your life they own. When people ask me why I didn't re-up, I site crap like the above. That, and that non-married enlisted troops are often treated (and paid) as a sub-species.

  6. I'm at Fort Hood and this same thing happened to us last Thursday. 1st Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division held a Brigade wide health and welfare check of the barracks, and searched all of our cars. Soldiers were all repeatedly asked about the number, type and location of our personally owned weapons that are stored on private property off post. We were told that our personal rights to privacy do not outweigh the chain of command's rights to good order and discipline.

  7. Are the other branches, Navy and Air Force, following this strategy as well, or is the Army the only one doing this?

  8. This is not a single incident at Fort Hood. ALL incoming Fort Carson Soldiers are told to register their firearms on base regardless of if they are kept on base or not.

Comments are closed.