Looking for confirmination on this

[Willard]

Military personnel are being secretly ordered to submit information

Military Personnel Ordered To Comply With Illegal Private Firearms Registration

I couldn't find where it'd been posted here already, but I'm curious if there's any truth to it.

Thanks

 

[suby]

I followed this on another forum (Alex Jones wasn't involved at that point) months ago. Lots of debate about what if anything was happening. It basically came down to it being the individual soldier's chain of command's policy on the issue, not an Army or base-wide policy. That was just the general opinion that most people came to based on what the guy said, the allegations, and documents, etc. I didn't read the Alex Jones article, just skimmed it.
I have not heard anything about this since then, either from forums, the media, or the ARMY.
Nothing to see here, move along.

 

[dburkhead]

There's no law requiring any such listing of firearms. There's no Army policy requiring it. However, military commanders have extraordinary powers to give orders to their subordinates.

For example: did you know that technically, a soldier is required to get permission of his company commander to marry? That requirement is usually ignored but has been invoked from time to time to stop a highly ill-advised marriage (often involving a local hooker that the soldier has "fallen in love" with--such marriages can, sometimes, work but the more common result is the soldier coming home one day to find wifey still turning tricks with the result that said soldier ranges somewhere between useless to outright dangerous for some time afterward).

That's just one example of the power that officers have over the soldiers under their command.

Even leaving aside whether the listing-guns situation actually happened (which appears from several other venues to be an open question), one can argue whether the commander should give any such orders, there's really no question (per a former JAG and instructor at the Army War College that I know on another forum) that the commander has the authority to issue such an order.

 

[jeremy]

Just tell them the Privately Owned Weapons belong to your wife. Your wife does not have to do what your commander dictates...

 

[dburkhead]

Just tell them the Privately Owned Weapons belong to your wife. Your wife does not have to do what your commander dictates...

And if the commander orders you to report all firearms in your household, that bit of barracks lawyering fails.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

The supposed "order" is just another example of the things recruiters never tell you about military life .

 

[dburkhead]

The supposed "order" is just another example of the things recruiters never tell you about military life .

Why the quotes around "order"? It may be an ill-advised order (if it even happened--there is some question on that from some other venues), but there's nothing illegal about it. It's an entirely legal and valid order.

What? You expect them to tell you that in the military you will be subject to the orders of officers appointed over you? Should they also tell you that water is wet and that, if you look carefully, you can see that it gets dark when the sun goes down?

Or should they perhaps tell you every single order that you might be called on to obey, every single job detail, and every single detail of what you will have to do in the military from the time you show up for in-processing to the time you get walk out the gate after ETS? That would only take about five times (or more) than the enlistment itself (it almost always takes longer to describe something in detail than to do it or experience it).

If you're in the military you are under orders. Not knowing that is called not reading the large print on your contract.

Now, if the commander had called for confiscating (barring an investigation of wrongdoing where the weapons could be evidence) the weapons, that would be a different matter. He could forbid them on post if he so desired. He might forbid them in the soldier's home (not sure about that--I'd have to check with my ex-JAG friend), but if the soldier wanted to have a friend or relative hold onto the weapons until such time as the soldier left the military, I don't think that any lawful order could forbid that.

 

[jeremy]

And if the commander orders you to report all firearms in your household, that bit of barracks lawyering fails.

Not barracks lawyering. That pearl of wisdom came straight out of a JAG officers mouth. Back in the mid '90's they started to do this horse crap at Hood when I was stationed there. I went and seen JAG and got their .02.

The worst your commander can do is force your wife out of government housing. And if they do that you get paid for it.

 

[Willard]

Yesterday on AJ's radio broadcast, they were speaking to military personal, including the guy who sent-in the info.

 

[dburkhead]

Not barracks lawyering. That pearl of wisdom came straight out of a JAG officers mouth. Back in the mid '90's they started to do this horse crap at Hood when I was stationed there. I went and seen JAG and got their .02.

The worst your commander can do is force your wife out of government housing. And if they do that you get paid for it.

I suspect the case you got from from your JAG was a bit different from what I'm discussing. The original case was a person living off base who was (reportedly--again, some question has been raised about whether the event actually happened as described) required to list all his firearms. The "off base" issue was already covered.

The question about the case was whether this requirement was actually a lawful order. When I took this to another forum, one of the folk who responded was a former JAG and former instructor at the Army War College: Company commanders have a lot more authority over the men under their command than most people realize. The example of one technically requiring permission of the company commander to marry was raised, specifically, his comment was:

You would be amazed at what the armed forces can do. Bet you didn't know a company commander could go and inspect your off post house or apartment or order someone else to. But they can. Bet you didn't know you need your company commander's permission to marry. But you do
.
Neither of those things, by the way, are really done anymore. They used to be, though, and AFAIK, they're still legal or mandatory.

You legally need your company commander's permission to marry. They can come in and inspect whenever they want (and, despite the "not really done anymore" disclaimer, another participant came back with a recent case of doing just that and, BTW, the marriage issue has also come up sometime within the last 4 years). You think a little thing like requiring a list of all firearms in the household is going to trip the "out of bound" alert?

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Why the quotes around "order"? It may be an ill-advised order (if it even happened--there is some question on that from some other venues), but there's nothing illegal about it. It's an entirely legal and valid order.

.

I'm probably grammatically in-correct with the quotes , but they were meant to imply that nobody here seems to know if it was an actual event .

As for the rest of the sentence I didn't go into detail simply cause I was too lazy to type it out , but here goes .

No I don't expect a recruiter to do anything more than accentuate the positive aspects of military life and say nothing about that fact that you will be lawfully required to do things that you might not agree with , or like .

I certainly don't expect them to tell potential enlistees that sometimes their superiors can make their life hell for no other reason then they simply feel like it .

 

[dburkhead]

I'm probably grammatically in-correct with the quotes , but they were meant to imply that nobody here seems to know if it was an actual event .

Okay, that's fine. That usage of quotes can often mean that the word to denote irony or disagreement--such as implying that the "order" was unlawful.

As for the rest of the sentence I didn't go into detail simply cause I was too lazy to type it out , but here goes .

No I don't expect a recruiter to do anything more than accentuate the positive aspects of military life and say nothing about that fact that you will be lawfully required to do things that you might not agree with , or like .

I certainly don't expect them to tell potential enlistees that sometimes their superiors can make their life hell for no other reason then they simply feel like it .

Whereas my point was that the fact that one's superiors can give orders and one has to obey them (except in situations that are, well, exceptional) is not something that recruiters should need to tell them.

It's the military, not a frat party.

 

[Willard]

It's the military, not a frat party.

Unless you're future presidential material

 

[dburkhead]

Unless you're future presidential material

Oh, for some reason I suspect that you are referring to the spin (or outright lies) told by the media about a certain recent President.

 

[Willard]

Oh, for some reason I suspect that you are referring to the spin (or outright lies) told by the media about a certain recent President.

Could you be alittle more vague? No idea what you're talking about

 

[dburkhead]

Could you be alittle more vague? No idea what you're talking about

But do you know what you were talking about, since my post was in response to yours.

It's called "irony."