Report: Military Establishing Active Duty Firearms Database

Well that didn’t take long. The Commander in Chief’s gun controlling zeal has evidently already reached into the military ranks. According to a report received from the wife of an active duty lieutenant (not pictured above) who is stationed in Indiana, the Army intends to register the firearms owned not only by servicemen and -women, but by their spouses and children as well . . .

To protect the careers of those involved, no names or base locations can be used here. Suffice it to say, though, that a gun rights organization with which I’m associated received a rather frantic call from an Army spouse after her husband received an email from his Captain. As she relays it, the email asked for a full list of all firearms (including make, model and serial number) owned by her husband and any member of the family.

According to the report, the email went out to all members of the unit, whether or not they live on-base. The lieutenant in question lives with his family off-base.

The implications of such a request are fairly staggering. It would seem to violate the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act’s provision against the creation of a gun registry. Here’s the relevant section of the law:

No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

Of course, the President may have made the determination that, in his capacity as Commander in Chief, he can order the creation such a registry within the military without the involvement of the Attorney General.

Again, we have not yet seen the email that’s been described to us by the military spouse in question. Yet. But we’d very much like to confirm the validity of this report.

[We have received a copy of a 2011 memo sent to troops at Ford Hood. Click here to view that required troops to register their personally owned firearm (POF). This is the first we've heard of the practice spreading to POW registration off-base.]

That said, a two-year implementation phase sounds about right. Anyway, if you’re an active duty service member and have received such a request order via email through the chain of command, please forward it to guntruth@me.com.

We will, of course, keep your identity in the strictest confidence.

190 Responses to Report: Military Establishing Active Duty Firearms Database

  1. avatarborekfk says:

    Glad I didn’t re-enlist.

  2. avatarGunNut says:

    Well, I have to say that this is a very creative (ab)use of the Commander-in-Chief’ authority. It’s pretty much the “do everything we can get away with” approach the executive branch has been using for the last four years, though, so I can’t say I’m surprised.

    “Safe storage” requirement for military-member-owned guns in 3… 2… 1…

    • avatarJason says:

      Last 4 years? 16 at least.

      • avatarGunNut says:

        This is true. You’ll have to forgive my lack of perspective; I was thirteen when the ’08 presidential campaign started, so it’s hard to have the broader view that a lot of more well-seasoned posters here do.

        I do my best to read up on the past, but sometimes my lack of personal experience and perspective show…

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          My sensei (who has an endless supply of bite-sized wisdom) once told our class:

          Ignorance is an open vessel waiting to be filled, which sometimes requires that you pour out some of what it previously held.

          Stupidity is a locked box, and the only key that will open the lock is inside.

          I like knowing when I’m ignorant. Then I can do something about it.

        • avatarGunNut says:

          Amen to that.

        • avatarWillie says:

          I guess from your words that you are 17. I am 67. I think you are mature enough and self-aware enough to stand shoulder to shoulder with me. Keep reading. Your generation will have to lead us back from the abyss.

    • avatarDJ says:

      Most serving and prior service guys I know are such sticklers for safety, safe storage requirements would be meaningless, because we already do it voluntarily.

  3. avatarJoshinGA says:

    I hope every active duty soldier will send back this response: FOAD

    • avatarCasey T says:

      They can’t do that. Speaking out against a higher ranking official is a chargeable offense. Not a good idea.

      • avatarRon Burgundy says:

        What about “Sir, outside duty I am a peaceful treehugging gun free citizen, Sir.”?

        • avatarTex74 says:

          Unfortunately when you enter the military you quite literaly become government property and are on duty 24/7.

        • avatarrangered says:

          I understand that in a volunteer armed service, the enlistee gives up certain rights “voluntarily”. But what rights do the spouse/family of the enlistee still have? Are they controlled by the commanding officials of their spouse? If they live off base, in civilian quarters, do not they have the same rights as you or I? Just asking? Genuinely interested.

        • avatarscottlac says:

          Actually, being required to comply with an unlawful order is the right thing to do.

          http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ383/pdf/PLAW-111publ383.pdf

          Section 1062 of the 2010 Defense Act says (to paraphrase) “None ya damn business what I have off post. Now de-register my personally owned weapons already in your database. Now would be fine”

          This was the same defense act that addressed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” issue. Unfortunately this didn’t get as much press.

      • avatarAaron says:

        The oath reads “support and defend the consitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to obey the orders of the president” The constitution comes first for a reason: if the president tells you to do something unconstitutional, you tell him/her to FOAD.

        • avatarTexanHawk says:

          Aaron, you’re mostly correct. The oath of enlistment states:
          I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

          And you’re very correct that the Constitution takes precedence. However, multiple Military Courts, have affirmed that an enlisted man must ASSUME orders to be lawful unless he can prove otherwise.

          Military Officers, on the other hand, take a different Oath of Office:
          I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

          Note that following the orders of the President is absent. Some might argue that it is implied since an Officer’s Commission is from the President, but most authorities argue that they expected Officers to place the Constitution above all else.

  4. avatarg says:

    Interesting… so I guess the rationale is that soldiers, being enlisted in the military, have to wave their civilian property rights and privacy rights, and register their privately owned weapons?

    Wow. Just wow. Maybe they’re using soldiers as a test case for the feasibility of mass civilian registration?

    • avatarHuman Being says:

      All active duty servicemen need to “sell” their private firearms to a non-spouse family member immediately. If the new owner happens to leave said newly-owned firearm in the previous location for the moment, so be it.

    • avatarrosignol says:

      Maintaining large databases is highly resource-intensive and prone to bit rot, which is why the smarter members of the military keep personal copies of their important documents and medical records just in case the bureaucracy misplaces the relevant info or doesn’t keep it current (which happens often).

      The people who do the work know this very well, so do the managers who supervise them. The clueless ones tend to be at the executive level.

      tl;dr: no, this is almost certainly not a test case.

    • avatarBarstow Cowboy says:

      You waive a lot more than your property rights. You quite literally waive your right to not get yourself killed.

      “Geez sarge, what you’re suggesting sounds like certain death. I think I’m going to have to sit this one out.”

      I forget who said it, but I once heard a man say that there should be no standards to get into the military, because anyone dumb enough to join the military automatically qualifies (because the only standard is that you have to be dumb to join). Before I get a bunch of hate sent my way, I don’t agree with that, but a lot of people who say they know what they’re getting into have NO IDEA what they’re getting into until it’s too late.

  5. avatarTex74 says:

    The military has been the social experament phase of the federal government for decades. Mainly because the members don’t have a choise. It’s where the president is commander in chief and can behave like a dictator ie; don’t ask don’t tell and then the repeal. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have had to suffer this for decades and it’s only gotten worse. Who would want to volunteer for that?!

    • avatarAharon says:

      I was fool enough to volunteer for the military when I was 18 years old.

      • avatarTex74 says:

        As was I. I gave them eleven years before I’d had enough. God only knows what it’s like now.

        • avatarJSIII says:

          It is bad. My best friends little brother is leaving the USMC after 8 years in the spring. Lots of scary training with dual uses, all I need to do to not feel paranoid is talk to him wheb he is home on leave…

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          It couldn’t have ANYTHING to do with the fact that we have had troops overseas doing urban pacification and peacekeeping without appropriate training, could it?

          No, far more reasonable and rational to conclude that I’ll be seeing a USMC LAV patrol roll down Fremont Blvd with weapons hot. Because that’s obviously What Obama Has Planned, the filthy secret Muslim.

          {/sarc} {/obviously}

        • avatarJSIII says:

          Except that his unit is responsible for base/installation security and has/probably never will deploy to a warzone. Why are they teaching those guys how to go house to house, search for weapons etc? That’s just the tip of the ice berg.
          The good news is most of the people in his unit have pretty much agreed to take an oath keeper approach should the S really hit the F and the military be ordered to disarm the “civilian” populace.

        • avatarelnonio says:

          JSIII: The unit may be stateside, however he will rotate out of the unit in due time to another one where he may deploy. To that end, training is training is training. Or he could end up filling an Individual Augment position.

          Additionally, if he is in fact with PMO, then he is in fact security for base housing as well. Seeing how many base houses have been privatized (public provate venture, or PPV) and occupancy rates determine whether any civilian can live on base (see Ft Ord, California, for instance, where CalState Monterey Bay students live “on base”) then it’s no stretch to think that they may be called to do house searches even stateside if the next MAJ Hasan (Army) ends up being Maj Hasan (USMC).

          To the rest of the conspiracy theorises: as AlphaGeek hinted at, it’s easier to look for conspiracies. Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after you. And sometimes, you’re just paranoid.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          Alpha Geek and others: It is not clear to me why ‘paranoia’ is invoked to describe reaction to shifts in training protocols. The preparing of U.S. Army Reserves units to cope with domestic missions began, as far as I know, under Bush 41, and was increased under Bush 43. It isn’t a matter of paranoia, but of information. What people make of it? What should they make of it? Even Wikipedia notes bits of it here and there: Read e.g. the entry for Ft. Ord, Secretary Panetta’s ‘home’ base: “During the last few years, basic training for National Guard and Reservists was conducted by regular army personnel, but there was a shift at that time to focus on the mental and emotional, as well as the traditional physical aspects of basic training. This was done to prepare the Guard and Reservists to better handle the unique challenges of serving in the domestic “theatre,” acknowledging the unique mental and emotional stresses inherent in a typical reservist deployments. The BRAC Commission of 1991 recommended closing the post and moving the units stationed at Fort Ord to Fort Lewis, Washington. In 1992, Army elements from Fort Ord and Marines from Camp Pendleton participated in quelling the 1992 Los Angeles Riots. “

  6. avatarAharon says:

    Presidents believe they are above the law. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The military will try to get away with denying its troops whatever rights they can get away with. The US military serves and protects an imperial empire ruled by political elitists, special interest groups, and the super-rich.

    • avatarJPD says:

      Aharon, a minister in Fort Worth had a sermon on power. He had a take on it that is believe is more accurate:

      “Power does not corrupt……..CORRUPTABLE people SEEK OUT positions of power.”

      Better description of POTUS, IMO.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Yes, and that’s news? ;)

    • avatarWLCE says:

      “The US military serves and protects an imperial empire ruled by political elitists, special interest groups, and the super-rich.”

      yup and once i learned that, i walked away from my service in the US Army. The sad part was that it took nearly two decades for me to finally figure that out.

      it saddens me to say this, but ironically, it turns out my comrades in arms were the biggest threat to my family and my liberty than al qaeda terrorists in afghanistan.

      if i had any say in supporting the standing army with my tax dollars, i sure as hell would opt out.

      • avatarBarstow Cowboy says:

        Funny how you finally figured it out right around the same time you became eligible to collect a pension, huh? And it we all opted out on funding the military, who’d be left to make sure you got your free money check every month?

        • avatarChris Mallory says:

          So who exactly is going to cross one of two oceans and invade this nation, the 4th largest by land area and filled with heavily armed citizens?

        • avataruncommon_sense says:

          Outstanding point Chris Mallory … quite possibly one of the most profound questions I have ever heard!!!

        • avatarWLCE says:

          read my statement again cowboy then re-evaluate your response.

          Im not drawing retirement or any money from the armed forces.

          “And it we all opted out on funding the military, who’d be left to make sure you got your free money check every month?”

          nobody and that wouldnt matter. the federal reserve and social security already pays for the military, not the taxpayer.”

          try again dink

        • avatarJarhead1982 says:

          So explain again where the federal reserve and social security get their money from?

      • avatarBarstow Cowboy says:

        So you left right before you were eligible for retirement? Were you active or reserve?

        • avatarWLCE says:

          yes and i was active.

          ive paid more than my fair share of wages back in taxes.

        • avatarBarstow Cowboy says:

          You left active duty when you were, what, a year or two away from retirement? Wow. You might have more integrity than common sense, but seriously, if you really passed on your retirement in favor of your convictions then hats off. I respect that more than I respect Stan Goff, taking a military retirement with one hand while balling the other hand up in a fist and shaking it at the government…

  7. avatarLance says:

    Prof that Obama hates military men who own guns as much as none Federal employees. Next all military M-16s and M-4s will have only 7 rounds per mag loaded or the solder will get court-marshaled.

  8. avatarAlphaGeek says:

    Is there any proof that this extends beyond a single Army command, or even beyond a particular Army captain and his staff?

    • No, which is why we have requested that emails be forwarded. We want to either confirm or disprove the report.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        Thanks, Dan. Glad to hear it. Worthy of immediate public reaction if it’s widespread, perhaps less so if it’s one commanding officer pushing the boundaries.

      • avatarRon Burgundy says:

        What is the repercussion for troops denying private firearm ownership, even if they do?

        Sort of like a “don’t ask, don’t tell”

      • avatartransplant wife says:

        I just spoke with my sister in law about this. She said when they trans’ed to Ft Bliss, within the last year and a half, my brother had to register all of his personal firearms with the base. According to my S-i-L my brother acted like this was nothing new, he has since given my father temporary custody of his firearms.

  9. avatarJoe Grine says:

    Can someone explain to me the rationale behind registration as a public safety measure. Seriously, I don’t get it. Seems to me the only reason to have mandatory registration is to make future confiscation easier. Am I missing something?

    • avatarGunNut says:

      I know, right? You hear all this talk about how society needs to know where guns are and who owns them, but anti-gunners can never quite say why this will help make the country safer or prevent crime.

      Proving, once again, that gun control is about control and not guns.

    • avatarAharon says:

      If all guns are registered and a criminal commits a crime with a 9mm pistol then all the police need to do is track down and confiscate everyone’s 9mm pistol and arrest all the 9mm owners. Therefore the police will have gotten the gun used in the crime and the criminal off the street. All the innocent 9mm pistol owners are guilty by association. Case closed. Welcome to Obama’s NWO.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      In theory it is to discourage/prevent arms trafficking, and to trace firearms used in crimes.

      In practice, registration’s costs and societal burden massively overshadow the actual benefits to either trafficking prevention or tracing.

      Then there’s that whole confiscation thing…

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        Those who have served in the military will recognize two goals of “firearms declarations.” First, the practice will serve to encourage self-restriction of purchases. Second, it will enable identification of those to be treated obliquely as unfit, watched, and discouraged. Expect young officers to buy nothing but a Browning 1885 High Wall in the future. “That’s all you need to hunt elk.”

    • avatarMark says:

      It’s no public safety measure. It’s all about control.

    • avatarDoomsdayJames says:

      Maybe they need some data to test in their brand new database intended for us law abiding citizens.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      Wayne LaPierre answered that very question in his speech tonight:

      [Obama] wants to keep all those names in a massive federal registry. There are only two reasons for that federal list of gun owners — to tax them or take them.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        IMHO that was the best line in the whole speech.

      • avatarRon Burgundy says:

        If Obama wants a federal registry, doesn’t 1986′s FOPA block that?

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          It does, but do not forget… People talk about registration being prohibited in the same breath as they say “shall not be infringed,” but you have to remember that while the latter is an inherent right enshrined in the Constitution, the former is simply a law like any other, and is subject to change or amendment based on the actions of the same legislature that originally enacted it.

        • avatar16V says:

          If they’re motivated (and it would appear they are) FOPA is merely a pesky sidenote.

          From the military (UCMJ is rather outside FOPA) to medical record consolidation, to (my fave) ammo background checks, not to mention CCW permits, and a dozen other work-arounds…

          Push a few buttons and the lists will be generated. If they don’t compile the data in one registry they meet the letter of the law, until they use it and it becomes too late.

    • avatarRobert M says:

      In theory Gun registration will allow Law Enforcement to track Gun back to who owns it. But like the stupid Gun Free Zones in Schools they only work in theory and in real life Criminal steal there guns and and it does little to stop real crime.

      Thanks
      Robert

      • avatarLeo338 says:

        Track them back to the owner of the gun? I wasn’t aware criminals are stupid enough to leave their guns at the scene of the crime so they can be traced.

  10. avatarLTC F says:

    I never registered my guns until I lived on post at Ft Riley in 2001. The registration form was a four part carbon, one for me, one for my company commander, one for the Provost Martial, one extra, because we’ll we’re the government. All copies were supposed to be destroyed when I left Fort Riley.

    I got to Ft Leavenworth in 2005. I went to turn in my paper copies again (I was living on post again). The MP at the fire arms registration desk taps some keys, turns his monitor around, and asks if I still have all of these weapons. Seems the Army has been illegally keeping a data base for a long time.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Bet you didn’t expect the 2A to be one of the rights you willingly suspended when joining, eh?

      Right up there with all of the non-evangelical-Christian USAF Academy cadets who have found themselves on the wrong end of religious discrimination in the past decade…

    • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

      On base is a different story. Barracks, Federal Housing, On Base Family housing all require the process above. If you off base in private housing there is no law, as far as I can tell that you need to register your firearm. Much less the firearm that your wife, or husband owns. It is private personal property off base.

      • avatarrosignol says:

        Yeah, that’s something I’m wondering about.

        but by their spouses and children as well

        What about off-base adult offspring living with the parents while attending college, etc? I don’t see how they are legally obliged to disclose serial numbers to the government because a parent is in the service.

    • avatarAlex _Q says:

      Its very interesting how they keep your privetly owned weapons forms forever but ones it comes to your other important documents they tend to loose it, makes you wonder.

      • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

        Yeah try being a member of tri-care and getting a prescription filled somewhere other than your home base!

    • avatarWLCE says:

      the same goes for fort benning.

      all privately owned weapons on post needed to be registered with make and serial number per post commander.

    • avatarHerb says:

      Local commanders’ policy directives can be even more intrusive. A soldier PCSs from one installation to another where personal weapons must be registered with the provost marshal even though he now lives off post. He soon gets called on the carpet for not reporting his personal firearms because when he registered them the last time (and was required to keep them secured in the arms room because he lived on post) they went into a central DOD database. And on some installations you have to physically bring your firearms to the PMO so some MP can personally eyeball the serial numbers & measure the barrels with a yardstick. This has been going on for a very long time only now it has a gun hating commander in chief for additional emphasis.

  11. avatarAnonymous says:

    What would the reaction be if federal law enforcement officers were required to register their privately owned firearms?

    • avatarMark says:

      I would say that they would say they don’t have any.

    • avatarWC says:

      My uncle became a felon because a police chief failed to register his pistol. That police chief was a friend of my uncle’s, and he went to visit my uncle at his house in Hawaii, along with his wife and another couple. The police chief had just retired, been thrown a nice retirement party, and because he liked guns, was presented with a nifty gun as a retirement gift from the department. My uncle also liked guns, so the police chief took his gun on the trip to show off to my uncle. One day while the police chief was away, my uncle, aunt and the other friends did some target practice with the gift gun, trying to hit a coconut in the water. They all took a few few turns with it, then a policeman came to the house, reading a script about how the neighbors have heard some gunshots, do they have any info? My uncle says sure- That was me. A swat team then pops out of the bushes and arrests him. My uncle takes the blame, and doesn’t mention that everyone there had taken some shots, too. He doesn’t want the hassle of a lawyer, so he goes to the judge and says I put myself at the mercy of the court. The judge says, “Are you sure? The gun was unregistered, which makes this a felony.” And that’s the story of how my uncle became a felon.

      • avatarjwm says:

        Illegal and unconstitutional laws made your uncle a felon. What was his crime? Exercising his rights was his crime. Amazing how easy someone like Feinstein or Schumer or barry finds it is ti destroy innocent lives with the stroke of a pen and they can still look themselves in the mirror when they’re done.

        • avatarWC says:

          To clarify: His life wasn’t destroyed. He did not go to jail. For a couple years, he had occasional lunch dates with his parole officer. I think he thought it was reasonable punishment for his stupid decision to shoot a gun in a residential neighborhood.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Has he had his civil rights restored, or is he still prohibited from voting or owning firearms for the rest of his life because of a stupid decision that caused no harm to anyone?

        • avatarWC says:

          I believe there were a few years when those rights were suspended.

        • avatarWC says:

          As a young man, my uncle had been very athletic and competative. When he was in his 20s, he was in an accident that left him in a wheelchair. He found that in duck hunting, he could still compete with able-bodied people and take home the trophy. He had a cabinet filled with his trophies. And his dogs were great at not only fetching ducks, but also helping at home. After the felony, the trophy cabinet went away. He never did do duck hunting after that.

      • avatarMichael B. says:

        Your uncle trusted the state too much and had/has a slave mentality that’s all too common these days.

  12. avatarmountocean says:

    Every time I’ve moved, the mover’s wouldn’t transport my gunsafe without the make, model, serial # of every piece. But I have no reason to belive they shared that with Uncle Sam, unlike the Colonel’s unfortunate incident above.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      I guess it would depend on how many you own, but I think I’d let the movers move the safe, but the guns would move in my possession. I’m sure there are some reasons that wouldn’t be feasible, but that would be my point of origin for all planning purposes.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      I’m still stuck on the idea that you let the movers take possession of your firearms. Every time I’ve moved I’ve had to relocate vehicles, at least one of which I’ve personally driven from $OldHouse to $NewHouse. You’d better believe the guns went with me, not in a moving van.

      • avatarCarlosT says:

        You moved your guns using Perl? I know you can do a lot with it, but that’s a new one for me.

      • avatarmountocean says:

        I guess I should clarify, every time I moved to/from overseas or through Canada. The most sentemental ones stayed with friends.

  13. avatarJan says:

    Every now and then I wondered what my life would be like if I had stayed enlisted. Then something like this comes along and I’m glad I got out when I did. It’s hard not to think you’re some sort of government lab rat while in the service.

    And to the service members, if you need a safe place to keep your arms there’s some room in my safe… just can’t promise they’ll stay powder free. :D

  14. avatarCZJay says:

    Know your enemy?

    • avatarST says:

      The military ironically is one of the most anti-gun organizations in the country. As proof, here’s what I had to do when I bough my first carry pistol when I was active duty USAF.

      Step 1: Pay $$$
      Step 2:Take Gun directly to the Air Force Police Barracks.
      Step 3:Fill out temporary registration form and leave the weapon at the base armory.
      Step 4: Print and fill out DD form 1314, Firearms & Ammunition Authorization.Acquire immediate supervisor’s & squadron commander’s (0-5 )signature. The Security Police Unit Commander also signs the document.

      Step 4: Wait 7 days for the 1314 form to work its way up the chain Pray no one whos autograph you need is on leave, deployed or on TDY.

      Step 5, bring completed form to Security Forces Barracks for filing. At this point the name, make, model and serial # of the weapon is documented .Whenever you take the gun out of the police armory, you have to ” sign out” your own property every time you leave the post, and then sign it back in before going back to your enlisted home. That meant whenever I wanted to carry off base, Id have to start my trip at the base Police Station – every time.

      Worse, buying new guns flat out sucked. I’d walk out of the nearby Cabelas all happy about my new gun purchase, only to cry into my steering wheel as I approached the Base Gate knowing that I’d be soon handing my property over to government workers for ” safekeeping”. To add insult to injury, I would have to accomplish ANOTHER DD Form 1314 with the 3 necessary signatures and attendant 7 day waiting period before I could legally sign out my new toy. Thanks to the AF I have a sense of empathy for my brethren in California and New Jersey.

      Ill never forget my first gun purchase as a free man post- military service. I was happy to the point of tears because I could TAKE MY GUN HOME.

      • avatarTex74 says:

        That’s exactly why I never bought one until I left the service and left my childhood shotgun at my parent’s home. People who haven’t served have no clue just how cumbersome, imposing and bureaucratic the federal government is. I loved being a soldier serving my country but I HATED being treated like an idiot by the very government that I served.

        • avatarmatt says:

          I loved being a soldier serving my country but I HATED being treated like an idiot by the very government that I served.
          Did you ever consider that you were an idiot for volunteering to be treated like that, and to be used for no other purpose than to advance the policies of a group of politicians?

      • avatarJan says:

        “The military ironically is one of the most anti-gun organizations in the country. As proof, here’s what I had to do when I bough my first carry pistol when I was active duty USAF.”

        And gun-grabbers still use the Ft. Hood shooting as an example how having guns in good guy hands isn’t going to stop a mass murderer. The whole base is a gun-free zone, that’s why soldiers had to wait for PD to save the day.

  15. avatarSixpack70 says:

    Sounds like some dumbass captain trying to get ahead of the game. Nothing came to me so far to do any registration with my unit. Hood made us register after Hasan went nuts. We had people registering weapons that were not even in the state to overload the system and freak out the command. One warrant officer had about 30 guns. I had an NCO who had 26. I was lagging behind with 4 at the time. I have since fixed that problem.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Well played, Sixpack70. Gotta love a spontaneous gun-registration denial-of-service overload attack. :)

    • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

      So you guys are already registered.
      Also were they requesting that if you were living off base in private housing?

      • avatarSixpack70 says:

        Dan, originally if you lived off post you did not have to register. After the shooting everyone had to no matter what. Dependents did not have to register unless they lived on post. The thing is they never had problems with the people that registered.about Years ago we would go shooting during lunch. Then the idiot made it so we didn’t even want to go near post with a firearm. I had 3 .45 bullets in my glove box i left from the range. I got stopped and had a random inspection. One guard started to freak out. The other guard shut him down and had to instruct him that I did nothing wrong. It was a bit tense for a minute.

  16. avatarGC says:

    As an AD serviceman I can say I haven’t seen this yet in my branch. But I’m sure, if true, it will all be in the name of “suicide prevention”.

  17. avatarDave S says:

    BHO is nothing if not creative!

  18. avatarrip usa says:

    Can anyone tell me what comes after registration?

  19. avatarSTxDvlDg says:

    This probably has more to do with the fact that suicide is at an all time high more then anything else. This year was rough on that side.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      This. Absolutely right. Two separate Army friends of mine tell me the command staff are going apeshit over the suicide stats and the resulting horrible press.

      • avatarHuman Being says:

        Someone needs to sit them down and explain that suicide impulse is independent of method. Someone doesn’t go “all is dark and pointless, but I don’t have a gun to hand so I guess I’ll watch some reruns of The Honeymooners instead”. They go find rope, glass, gasoline, razorblades, car exhaust, kitchen knives, or your average medicine cabinet.

        You stop someone who is suicidal by noticing and speaking to them; not by taking away one avenue of harm and calling it good.

        • avatarAce says:

          Impulse may be independent, but most people will not immolate, poison or hang themselves, whereas last year guns were the method of choice for 60% of military suicides.

        • avatarmatt says:

          Then they’ll just buy a bottle of helium and kill themselves with that, unlike other gasses, helium will fool your body in to thinking youre breathing oxygen.

  20. avatarCasey T says:

    I would not be surprised if this was a stupid command or the stupid dictator in chief. Officers in the military can be really stupid, especially ones who send out emails with orders in them. I once had a dumb@ss Captain tell me that there was no way I could take 15 credits in college because he went to Penn State and 12 was a full load. I then explained to him the difference between a quarter system and a semester system by showing him my transcripts in the package he was holding that showed I had taken 18 credits several times while pulling a 3.4 GPA. It was really funny because he got his panties all in a bunch since I showed he was a moron and all he could do is tell me that he was going to recommend to the Colonel to deny my package. 30 minutes later my Master Gunnery Sergeant had me in front of the Colonel explaining how the Captain was not the brightest and how the Colonel needed to approve it. Needless to say, I won.

  21. avatarWLCE says:

    i phucking hate MPs.

    • avatarBurg says:

      Why? Had a bad personal run in or just do?

      • avatarWLCE says:

        yes, they were the ones telling us to shave our beards and get haircuts, wear our uniform patches, take our hiking boots off and wear the standard tan ones, and put on clean ACUs. alongside them was the poodle sergeant major that within a arms reach away.

        my response? “Sure DUDE. Ill get right on that!”.

        • avatarmountocean says:

          I guess wearing a beard and hiking boots with patchless, dirty ACUs explains your righteous indignation.

    • avatarduke nukem says:

      im an mp…

  22. avatarDrVino says:

    Had off-line with a recently discharged Afghanistan vet. He attributes this to an overzealous, left-leaning bleeding heart commander who is jumping the gun on the presumptions that 1) it is the right thing to do, and 2) within his authority to do so.

    It would help the nerves, in times like these, if the headline read:

    “Unconfirmed Report: Military Establishing Active Duty Firearms Database”
    or:
    “Unverified Report: Military Establishing Active Duty Firearms Database”

  23. avatarPascal says:

    While a soldier cannot discent against a higher ranking officer, nothing says they cannot vote in the mid-term elections against those who choose to do this stupid thing.

    I look at this as permission to vote against any anti-gun, anti-2a, anti-military politician.

  24. avatarensitu says:

    When I was stationed over seas all POFs were registered, and when we shipped em home there had to be additional import paperwork. Anyone want to buy a Colt Commander in 30 Luger w/German proofs 1/500?

    • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

      Yes while on base, or in a different country your are technically importing or exporting a firearm, so of course you have to fill out paper work!

  25. avatarHuman Being says:

    Oh… The penny just dropped.

    If a serviceman owns many guns at home, or his family members do, he is most likely a 2nd Amendment supporter. If not, he may be less resolved. A registration database might be useable as a quick-pass for seeing which units are more “reliable” if ordered out against “domestic insurrection” (or whatever), and which ones need to be ordered to remain on-base.

  26. avatarMilo says:

    Good lord – we have one unverified report from a woman who may have heard from someone low on the chain of command who may have heard from someone slightly higher on the chain of command.
    BREAK OUT THE TIN FOIL, THE HELICOPTERS IS COMING.

    You really think one lowly captain in Indiana was the tip of the spear on this? That establishing a military-wide registry wouldn’t take time, and, I dunno, go through the DoD?

    Running nonsense like this and leading with OBAMA’S DONE IT does nothing to help our cause.

  27. avatarscottlac says:

    It’s also an infringement of the law passed in the 2010 Defense Act that was passed in Jan 2011. It’s the same Defense Act that address the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” issue. People don’t seem to have a problem remembering and enforcing that part. Section 1062 specifically addresses the command level abuses that happened after the Fort Hood shooting. Post/Base level commanders were doing these egregious registrations and confiscations.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ383/pdf/PLAW-111publ383.pdf

    Go down to sec. 1062

    I used this to get my personal weapons un-registered from the Federal Military Database a year ago but the DoD has no intention of destroying anyone else’s records to comply with this law.

    • avatarFyrewerx says:

      Apparently, some bases reinstated the order after that one was issued. At Ft. Stewart, for example, this order was issued on 28 June 2011. Note, however, that it appears to be more for firearms soldiers intend to bring onto base.
      http://www.stewart.army.mil/des/documents/weaponreg.pdf

      I believe the current letter (subject of this thread) is very probably about the increasing suicide rate in the military.

      • avatarFyrewerx says:

        This is the form issued at Ft. Gordon. It also specifies that it is for personal firearms being brought on base.
        http://www.gordon.army.mil/dhr/fg_regulations_and_forms/FG_Forms/FG_Form_9243_w_instructions.pdf

        • avatarscottlac says:

          There always has been, and continues to be registration for firearms brought onto base. And, that information continues to stay in a federal database long after a soldier moves or leaves the military.

          It takes moving heaven and earth to convince them to remove records from the database.

          The only real change I see with the policy is that instead of registering within 72 hours of bringing them on base, it is changed to register first BEFORE bringing them on.

        • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

          If you bring a firearm on to base of course it needs to be checked in a registered. This is normal and the practice has been done for years, so this is not new.

        • avatarFyrewerx says:

          Exactly. That’s why I pointed out that these were from 2011 (even after the 2010 Defence Act), and specifically for ON base.

  28. avatarMD Matt says:

    Hmm.
    Legally, I wonder if you create a firearms trust and transfer the guns to the trust where that leaves you.

  29. avatarduke nukem says:

    my unit hasnt said anything about registering firearms. but im reserves not active duty.

  30. avatarFiun Dagner says:

    Back when i was in the military (in the late 90′s) and lived on base i was required to get a base FOID card, register my weapons with the MP’s, and store them in the unit arms room, which was only open 9-5 M-F. This was for everything from my rifles to my paintball gun. The ones who lived in the baracks weren’t even allowed to own fixed blade knives, or folding knives with a blade longer than six inches, without storing it in the arms rooms There is nothing new here except the requirement that personnel who live off post register their weapons.

    • avatarChainsawferret says:

      it was the same for me in the late 80′s. Hell my 1st Sgt wanted to make me store the weapons I used for SCA fighting (rattan, foam padding and duct tape) in the Arms room. Instead I dropped them off at a buddy’s who lived off base. But baseball bats were fine.

  31. avatarstateisevil says:

    So freakin funny. Well, sad. Is the empire good or bad for our remaining freedom? It’s bad. Please don’t join the military. If you’re there now quit. You’re “serving” no one but the enemy of all our liberties.

  32. avatarChris says:

    So if abortion is allowable under th 4th amendment how can the same principle for being secure in their home or anywhere not be applied to constitutional carry? Gun registries in any form violate the 2nd and 4th.

  33. avatarSkyler says:

    Back when the Gulf War started the Marine sentries started searching cars coming on base frequently. They finally had to send the word out to all the tenant commands to ask everyone to stop carrying firearms on base. It was against California law and they were supposed to enforce it. But so far almost every car was carrying firearms illegally, that is concealed and within reach of the driver.

  34. Do you guys believe everything you read on the internet? Or just the anti-Obama scare propaganda?

    Because if you believe this is going out to the whole military then I have an alluvial gold deal in Nigeria to tell you about.

    • avatarduke nukem says:

      this has to be antiobama propaganda

    • avatarcyrano says:

      The military is already eyeing returning soldiers and any PTSD symptoms in relation to their gun ownership. It is not much of a leap of logic to expand to all personel. This I know from personal experience.

    • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

      LBD This was first hand information, not saying Obama did anything. She is freaked, and wanted to know why, or more to the point if they could legally ask this. Right now as best we know they CAN NOT.

      They CAN NOT, if you are not high risk, no issues, live off base on private housing. I knew from the start if you live on base, you have to check your weapons. that isn’t new and the practice has been in place forever.

      That being said the fact she had heard that others had received the email as well, was disconcerting. We have put the article out there to find out the TRUTH. We want to know for sure, with verification, if this is in fact true or not.

      If there is nothing there then fine, if there is something there, then as an investigative journalist I need to see where it leads. I am not a tin foil hat wearing kind of guy. I am the first one to be speculative of a claim or situation. We are working as best we can to get the truth and verify it.

  35. avatarOldLawman says:

    Just read through this post and all the comments this morning. My father (in the pre-volunteer days) and my brother (volunteer days) were Navy Pilots, but as a I grew up, we did not live on base, so I have no experience with that situation.

    If a soldier lives off base, who knows if family members own a firearm ? In other words, just don’t say anything. That would certainly be my advice. What they don’t know, they don’t know. As to the service member themselves, make your own decision.

  36. avatarAaron says:

    At least the navy isn’t as stupid as the army… yet.

  37. avatarPaul M says:

    Might be because the military is losing more soldiers to suicide than to war. Has been for some time. And they only count successful suicides, not the much more common attempts. You know it’s coming so all together now say “the beatings shall continue until morale improves!”

    • avatarChris says:

      Here’s a thought, if you want to help reduce suicides in the military stop sending our troops to areas of the world that hate us, where they are forbidden to engage the enemy which results in a lot of people seeing their freinds killed and they can’t do anything about it.

    • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

      Paul, we know that they can ask a solider to surrender his arms temporarily if they feel he is at risk. This usually comes with him seeing the head shrink on base of course.
      This we understand, but the report I received was that this was sent to the entire unit, without any at risk signs, which as far as we know is completely illegal.

  38. avatarthatoneguy says:

    The only laws pertaining to registration for off-post personnel are those of the state you are currently stationed in. i.e. if I am stationed in Hawaii I have to register them with the state. If I am stationed in Georgia I don’t have to register anything. If you live on-post you must register with the Provost Marshall.

    • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

      This was the same that we have been verifying over the past night. We are asking if you received such a letter, or email to please forward to us. We will not use names or any personal information, but we are trying to verify if this is actually a systemic issue.

      • avatarthatoneguy says:

        No, I have not received any emails or letters of this nature. It could be some BS his commander is trying to do. Also, being in Indiana this guy may very well be in the National Guard. If so, this could be coming from the state.

        • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

          Please inform us if you do get a letter.
          Also it is my understanding this person is enlisted full time.

  39. avatarCharles5 says:

    A little while back, the Navy put out an initiative to implement firearms safety training for sailors. Safety training is all good and well, but the training was only required for sailors that either owned a firearm or had a firearm present in their home. Essentially, it required each sailor to essentially self report that they owned a firearm by their mere presence at the training, since it was not required for those that did not own firearms. Furthermore, sailors were supposed to report how many firearms they owned and whether they were handguns, rifles, or shotguns. No serial numbers or exact models were required, but still, it was, in my opinion, a clear violation of the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act. I approached my XO and informed him that as an officer, it was my duty to question the lawful nature of all orders and that I felt this particular order was in violation of the rights of myself and my sailors. He told me that while he understood my position, he felt that firearms safety was important for our sailors and that I should proceed with the training as instructed. For the training, we were given the option of having each sailor complete the training online, or attend a classroom instruction of the same training, to be conducted by me, their division officer. I had anticipated my XO’s response and had already devised an alternative plan. I made ALL of my sailors (whether they owned a gun or not) attend the training, which I held at a gun range where I pretty much ignored the crappy “training” some pinhead in DC had devised and gave them all appropriate firearms safety training (four rules and all) along with instruction on state hunting laws and justified self defense laws and scenarios. It was about an hour training session, full of lots of questions from the ranks. Then, we all did some live fire exercises. What with weapons, ammo and range time rentals, the whole thing cost me about $400 out of pocket, but it was worth it in my opinion. As far as the paperwork, I recorded in their electronic records that each had successfully completed firearms safety instruction, making a note that it had been required for all sailors, making it a little less obvious who owned guns and who didn’t. There was a stupid questionnaire that they had to fill out and sign at the end of the training that asked how many guns they had, how they were stored, what types, etc. Those were supposed to be completed and filed in their hard copy record as documentation of the training. I had them complete and sign the forms and then those forms accidentally fell into the shredder. Rather than have them do it all over again, I simply placed a certificate in their file stating that they had successfully completed the firearms safety training.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      This guy is doing it right.

    • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

      Nice one! You probably created a few future gun owners that day as well!

      • avatarCharles5 says:

        Two of the sailors purchased their first handguns within a week of the training (I may have impressed upon them the importance of taking personal responsibility for their safety and life in general during the training). One got a Glock 19 and the other purchased a Beretta 92FS. Several more purchased firearms over the next few months that did not previously own them. I would say that prior to the training, only 5 or 6 owned firearms out of a group of 40. At least 15 of them now own firearms and I am always hoping for more. About half of them tried for their weapons quals (something that most sailors don’t have). I had a couple qualify Expert in that group.

        I really enjoyed the training and instruction and I wish there was more of a gun culture in the Navy. One of the first things to get marginalized during the Clinton Administration Budget Cuts were Navy Shooting teams and weapons quals. These days, you only have to get a weapons qual if you carry a weapon. Most sailors rarely see or even touch a weapon, so many of them do not have any kind of qual. They all get a familiarization fire in basic training, but it is a joke. If you don’t have to carry a weapon as part of your regular duties, you have to pay for the qual yourself out of your own pocket, unless the command is willing to pay, which they usually are not. In Norfolk, it runs $45 for pistol and $60 for rifle and if you don’t qual, you have to pay that again to give it another try. The shooting teams are slowly coming back, but the participants shoulder most of the cost themselves, so there are not as many participants as there could be.

        • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

          Being in the IDF I can say everyone qualifies from the cook to the guys who scrub the toilets.
          The US should be the same way.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          “Every Marine is a rifleman first.”

  40. avatarMartin Albright says:

    “If you live on-base, you have to register your firearms with the Provost Marshal”

    Not completely true. If you store your firearms on base, you have to register them with the PM (and this has been Army policy since I came in in 1980, probably long before that.)

    Those who live in the barracks are also required to store their firearms in the arms room – again, if they are kept on-post/base.

    I never registered any of my firearms when I was in, and I did it completely legally. How? Very simple: I did not keep my firearms on-post.

    Every military installation in the US is surrounded by “U-Store-It” places. And every time I PCS’s (transferred to a new duty station) my first stop – even before I checked in at the Replacement Depot – was at a U-Store-It, where I found a unit, deposited my arms and ammunition, along with other gear I didn’t need to be carrying in my car, and then I went and signed in.

    Not only did this simple task (which cost me maybe $30/month) keep me from having to register my guns, but I had access to them when I wanted them, not when the commander or armorer decided I could have them.

    When I deployed overseas, it was even simpler: My guns went to my brother, who kept them for me while I was gone. When I returned to CONUS, I picked up my guns along with my other gear.

    • avatarthatoneguy says:

      Correct. I should have been more clear. Though, some installations have differing regulations as mandated by the installation commander. Fort Carson (last time I checked) requires all firearms entering the installation to be registered.

  41. avatarRKflorida says:

    No one seems to be answering the primary question. Is this for servicemen living in government provided housing only? This housing can be either on base or off base but it is owned by the government. If you go ON BASE weapons will be tightly controlled. Always have been, always will be. If you live in government provided housing on or off base you agree to the conditions set by the government. You don’t HAVE to live in government housing, but you choose to. If you live in private housing and the pin heads are telling you to disclose information about your guns, you have an entirely different situation. I would simply lie to them. Sorry no guns here. It is none of their business.

    • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

      This question is to soldiers who DO NOT have PTSD, DO NOT have any civil issues which required intervention, and YOU DO NOT live on base, federal housing or in barracks…

      • avatarRKflorida says:

        If what you say is true, and I believe it to be, it falls to the individual to decide what they are going to do. And why are full grown military people going along with this? BTW, their uniforms in the picture look like bags of rags.

    • avatarST says:

      “You don’t HAVE to live in government housing, but you choose to.”

      Yeaaah, about that….

      In the Air Force, junior enlisted are FORCED to live on unaccompanied base housing until one of two things happens:
      They get married.
      They get promoted to an NCO (E-5/Staff Ssgt.) This part takes a minimum of 3 years IF you’re a “fast burner” and your Chain of Command likes you.

      I lived on my own dime in Chicago for years prior to enlisting. Uncle Sam didn’t give a f**k. The AF didn’t ask me if I wanted to stay on base, so all the restrictions I mention above in my previous post applied to me whether I wanted them to or not.

      Some career fields in the military also aren’t conducive to life off-post. AMXS (maintenance) squadrons sometimes work 12s or swing shifts, and if a mission comes down they have to drop what they’re doing and hit the flight-line. Being 15-45 minutes off post won’t be an excuse for missing duty, and military commanders DO have the authority to order NCOs and Officers to move on post if they feel the mission requires it. Got wife and kids off base and a 12 month lease on a house to finish?Tough sh-t.

      As to this….

      **”If you live in private housing and the pin heads are telling you to disclose information about your guns, you have an entirely different situation. I would simply lie to them. Sorry no guns here. It is none of their business.”**

      In the military there’s a little thing called the UCMJ. Most “requests” like this are actually direct orders in nature. If you lie that keeps the Gestapo from knowing you own guns, but the jig’s up big time if a burglar busts in and you use a shotgun to repel the attack.

      Naturally Uncle Sam will be quite offended you lied about owning guns, and a court martial for disobeying a lawful order will arrive on swift wings,followed by possible jail time & certain demotion and loss of pay.

      • avatarRKflorida says:

        That’s correct. If you live on base, you live with their rules. It doesn’t matter WHY you live on base, just that you do.

        As to that little thing called the UCMJ, do you actually believe that if you had to use a gun to defend your home you would give a rats butt about getting military punishment? That was the point, you WOULD have a gun to protect your home vs. the chance of some pin heads taking your guns because you wanted to be Tess True Heart and respond to an illegal request.
        And yes, you as an individual have to decide what are lawful orders and what are not. The Lt. Calley trial cemented that forever. But I will say that “possible” demotion, reduction in pay, etc. is not even on the radar when I decide an issue like this.
        When the commanding officer of the USS Cole told the sailors to not have bullets in their weapons, the senior NCO made the individual decision to not have ammunition on their person that could be quickly accessed. I would have carried that ammo. In direct violation of the commanding officers order. If I didn’t use it, fine, if I needed it I doubt I would have suffered any after action penalty.

        But this is all theoretical, the young service members have to deal with this and their choices are to not make the military a career or to ignore the requests or to go along with it. I can’t decide for them, only for myself. Thanks for that good input on the working hours, etc. that force the people to live on base.

        • avatarST says:

          The reason I mention the defensive scenario is because ANY incident in which a service member and the police cross paths WILL make its way back to the base.

          Lawfully shooting a home invader dead won’t get you criminal charges on or off base, but the report of the incident certainly will make its way to your Commander . If the local police don’t forward a report to your base Military Police section, he’ll find out when he reads the paper the next morning. Either way, when he/she sees you used a firearm in self defense that you previously claimed not to own on pain of a direct order, you’ll be standing at attention facing a hostile audience.

    • avatarCharles5 says:

      In the Navy, Junior Enlisted are required to live aboard ship or in the baracks (if they are attached to a ship, most live on the ship) until they are
      E-5′s (unless they have dependants). Exceptions are made for E-4′s that have more than 4 years of service, but that still requires command approval before they can live off base.

  42. avatarAir Force TSgt says:

    I have not heard of any of this at my base. If I do, I’ll let you know.

  43. avatarRalph says:

    I think it’s fair for the troops to report all their guns if the Generals report all their wh0res and crazy girlfriends.

  44. avatarLordChamp says:

    Is it time to start disobeying those unlawful orders folks? Time to stand up and be counted or fall and become the slaves, serfs, or peasants they wish you to be?

    This is one of the most insidious things this man could do. To use our military as a pawn, a way to achieve his unconstitutional intentions is reprehensible.

    A dishonorable discharge over this would be a “red badge of courage”, because it would be an honor to stand against something like this and this obviously anti-Constitution and anti-American, so called commander in chief.

    We the present and former military serve the CONSTITUTION, not the man. This man deserves no respect only our contempt.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      “Is it time to start disobeying those unlawful orders folks?”

      Have you gotten any? Let us know when you do. Until then you’re just wasting your breath on rhetoric.

      I said this in another thread, but it bears repeating: The time for revolution is not now. That does not mean that now is not the time for action. Let’s not forget that except for our benighted friends in New York — and we still have to see how that will play out in the courts — nothing has happened yet. The legislative process is still alive and well. Make your voice heard.

      • avatarLordChamp says:

        This was posed as a question, not a statement. So being a question, it certainly does not preclude the use of any options still open to us.

        Would you not consider this to be an unlawful order if it were to happen? If not, at what point do you consider that to happen?

        Those are the questions each individual has to answer individually.

        A law, ANY LAW, is only applicable when someone chooses to abide by it. No one can actually force you to abide by a law if you choose not to. You might suffer consequences for your actions but it is still your choice.

        Laws require compliance, if there is no compliance, the law in essence does not exist.

        In this instance, Creator given Natural laws reaffirmed in the Constitution, absolutely give full guidance in making your decision.

        “Shall not be infringed” along with the intent shown in the Founders words, leaves no doubt if honesty read.

        The only real choice is whether you support the Natural laws and the Constitution or you accept the continued usurpation of those laws when that happens.

        To paraphrase another ancient document, as for me and my family we will serve the Constitution.

        Best to consider questions such as these BEFORE the time that it is needed. It’s merely prudent and responsible so you are able to answer with logical thought and not emotional thought which generally leads to a bad decision.

  45. avatarWilliam says:

    How far down this road is off-duty disarming of police and military? From the rate of assault, two years seems a long way off. Sooner than two years?

    THEY HAD BETTER WAKE UP, AND FAST.

  46. avatarBryan says:

    Time for an enlisted man to sell his collection to his……………..for a $1.

    NO SIR, I OWN NO GUNS OTHER THAN
    WHAT UNCLE SAM HAS ISSUED ME, SIR!

  47. avatarDenver says:

    some hammerhead said, “Maintaining large databases is highly resource-intensive and prone to bit rot,”

    which is nothing but bilge water and hog wash.

    Large databases are maintained all the time, by brain dead zombies hired by various federal contractors for more money than you can imagine (or maybe not, but $50/hr for a warm body isn’t unusual fare in Reston, Va).

    • avatarmatt says:

      Hammerhead is right, I am a Symantec certified Asset Manager and was responsible for managing the IT assets (among other things) for BlueCross. We had things easy because a lot of the assets could be discovered over the network, other devices which were not on the network or not easily inventoried required physical examination which was resource intensive. And it was highly susceptible to bit rot because people wouldnt turn in paperwork when assets were retired, or when identifying attributes of them changed among a whole slew of other issues. In short, BlueCross has no idea what it owns or when it looses IT assets. Dont you feel safe using them as your health insur ance company?

  48. avatarSilver says:

    Does anyone in the military honestly believe they’re still serving a good cause? To all true patriots in the military, the best thing you can do with your time in service is becoming familiar with ways to bring the system to a halt for when the pols mobilize against the citizenry.

  49. avatarChad says:

    I’m retired Army, and I still work on a military installation. I have heard nothing from any of the soldiers I work with about anything like this. I’ve talked to a lot of them about the gun control problem. Every single one of them has said they would refuse to register firearms. Be it a military registration or a federal gun control law. Many have a few registered on post in order to be able to hunt here legally or shoot on the weekend at the MWR personal weapons range, but almost all have said they didn’t register the majority of their guns because it isn’t anyone’s business what they have at home.
    For those who have worried about the military coming for your guns, every last soldier I have spoken to said it would be a cold day in hell before they participated in anything like that.

  50. avatarSpecial J says:

    Just lie to them. That’s what I do. Most of my Chain’s been to the range with me off-duty, they damn sure can’t prove anything when I told them “no I don’t own any firearms” though.

    Personally the fact that this cannot be considered a lawful order helps me sleep at night.

  51. avatarWLCE says:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578260123802564276.html

    here’s a golden jewel of joy i found today. im glad im no longer in thats all i have to say.

  52. avatarJustice06RR says:

    So the single most disadvantage of the US soldier is being commanded by the CIC? Man that is a bummer for all our servicemen.

    And here I was planning to enlist in the Reserves this year…

  53. avatarTotenglocke says:

    Hey, that’s what happens when you sell your soul to the government. They literally own your ass and can do anything they please with you. No sympathy from me on this one.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.