Fort Hood soldiers told to list private weapons!

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Bigcountry02, Sep 30, 2010.

  1. Bigcountry02

    Bigcountry02 Coffee! If your not shaking, you need another cup Supporter

    7,248
    46
    48
    It has begun! I knew this was going to start since that second shooting incident at Fort Hood. It says the soldiers are encouraged to register their weapons if they live off-post, more towards enforcement!

    Next, it will be Government Civilians, Retirees and contractors!

    Fort Hood soldiers told to list private weapons

    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.

    The action recalls similar disclosure demands on which WND has previously reported at Fort Bliss in Texas and Fort Campbell in Kentucky.

    According to Christopher Haug Sr., the chief of media relations for Fort Hood, officials at the base issued an "operation order" that directed commanders "to reinforce Soldier Health and Wellness on Sept. 27."

    "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," Haug 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.

    "I feel like I have been violated and my 2nd Amendment rights infringed," the soldier wrote. "Last year Homeland Security said that veterans are a potential threat to the country, now I and many others in my unit are on a watch list because we own guns."

    The soldier said the actions were taken against soldiers throughout the brigade. Further, the soldier reported the lists of those with guns were assembled and passed out to various individuals on the base.

    "My platoon sergeant is very upset because he does not want everyone to know what he has in his private residence," the soldier said.

    Fort Hood officials did not respond to specific WND questions about the "lists" that were compiled and to whom the lists were given.

    In a WND commentary on the Food Hood issues, John Eidsmoe and Ben DuPré, both serving as legal counsel for the Foundation for Moral Law, argued it is not guns that kill, it is people who control guns, contrary to the socially correct perspective that the fault rests with the weapon.

    "By this twist of logic, America's love of airplanes led to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The solution to stopping the 9/11 Islamic terrorists, you see, was fewer people in fewer airplanes in fewer places," they wrote.

    "All such 'gun-control,' which the Brady-Campaign-types support, did nothing to stop Hasan from sneaking in two personal handguns. Killers with no regard for others' lives are hardly going to blink at anti-gun rules. Gun control only controls the law-abiding," they said.

    "Fort Hood had an unarmed population living under a deadly combination of a false sense of security and no means of self-defense. While soldiers should never have to worry about attacks from one of their own, forcing them to be unarmed makes them more vulnerable to traitors and saboteurs than the embattled enemy. Maj. Hasan knew this, and to maximize his evil plot he did not attack the armed MPs – he attacked dozens of soldiers and officers at the Soldier Readiness Center who he knew would be unarmed. And they were unarmed precisely because of the 'gun-control' measures at Fort Hood," they wrote.

    Further, Gerard Valentino of the Buckeye Firearms Foundation added in a separate commentary that soldiers need to be allowed to be armed.

    "The victims were in a place where legal concealed carry is prohibited. The soldiers were disarmed in the same manner as the students at Columbine, or the students at Virginia Tech. The sad fact is that regardless of whether you go to a victim zone in a military uniform or dressed in ill-fitting clothes of the average college student, you are at an undue risk because the criminal will be the only one with a gun when the shooting starts," he wrote.

    "The real question is why soldiers trained to carry a gun in combat are disarmed while going about their daily business when they are one of the prime targets of terrorism. While nobody wants fully armed soldiers marching down Main Street, USA, allowing them the same right to carry civilians are afforded is morally and legally just," he continued. "Leaving any American without a means of self-defense while a spree killer plies his trade is simply wrong, whether the victim is a civilian or soldier."

    WND's report earlier documented how a "Weapons Registration Form" at Fort Bliss required a long list of information about any private weapons, including the location stored and barrel description.

    At that time, base public information officer Jean Offutt told WND that registration of privately owned weapons is suggested and recommended, but there's no enforcement procedures available to the military if someone chooses not to submit the off-post information.

    However, the form used for the registrations stated in one paragraph, "Soldiers who reside off post will register all privately owned weapons/firearms with the PMO. This requirement applies whether or not the service member intends to bring the weapon onto the installation for any recreational or other use."

    The report about the weapons registration program at Fort Campbell came several months earlier.

    Second Amendment advocates have been alarmed, since President Obama took office, by a series of actions, including his advocacy of an international treaty that could require those who reload their ammunition to obtain federal permits.

    There also have been several legislative proposals introduced in Congress, including one that would require a fee and fingerprints for a type of national registration of guns.

    WND also reported when the Department of Homeland Security issued a report titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," that stated, "Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists."
     
  2. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,196
    250
    63
    Another rant from World Net Daily. For decades soldiers living on post have been required to register their private firearms. Soldiers living off post must register any firearms that they wish to bring on base for target shooting or hunting.

    I'm retired Army. I hunt and shoot on a nearby Army post. The guns that I bring on post are registered at the Firearm and Vehicle Registration Branch. Registration is in a Pentagon database. There is nothing on the form that says that a soldier who lives off post must register his weapons.

    Get caught with a concealed weapon an an Army post and you get a quick trip to the local US magistrate.
     

  3. cpttango30

    cpttango30 New Member

    13,934
    4
    0
    Quoted for the dam truth.

    Maybe some people should check FACTS before posting JUNK. Just saying.

    That was the way it was when I was in from 1997 to 2003.
     
  4. sarge_257

    sarge_257 New Member

    451
    0
    0
    There was a lot of typo's in that post. Also I am wondering what "Barrel Description" has to do with registering your firearm.
    (Well my firearm has a barrel that is round with a hole in the middle)
    That ought to tell it all.
    Sarge257
     
  5. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,445
    555
    113
    There WAS one overzealous company commander that gave an order requiring SMs living off post to register their firearms.

    When brought to the attention of higher command, it was countermanded.

    I suspect the commander read about that on his OER under the heading of "Judgement". NOT career enhancing move.

    BTW, this wasat Ft. Campbell KY, Charlie Company, 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment.
     
  6. IGETEVEN

    IGETEVEN New Member

    8,358
    4
    0
    Fort Campbell in Kentucky, is the proud home of the only Air Assault Division in the world, the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault). They are also the home of two prestigious Special Operations Command units, the 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne) and the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne).

    I am willing to safely venture that there ain't a whole lot of sharing and registering privately owned weapons information among these "soldiers" at all, the same goes for Ft. Bragg military personnel, as well. ;)
     
  7. skullcrusher

    skullcrusher New Member

    10,888
    1
    0
    The MEN have spoken.

    This thread can be shut down anytime soon.

    This one has been around for a long time. Fact check it.