1st person report

[long762range]

I didn't see anything in that post that was not easily believable, ESPECIALLY the parts about "ticket punching" little tin gods.

That is the problem with this type of fraud, it is believeable.  It is designed to entrap those of us who are dissatisfied with some element of our govenment.  When the organization places a provable fraud on its front page, the proported SFC Gerald Montgomery, I have to question all of the stories Oathkeepers publishes. 
 

[2HOW]

Army Commander Attempts Registration: A military commander at Fort Campbell in Kentucky demanded his soldiers give him the registration numbers of any guns they own privately and then reveal where they are stored. The order was stopped, according to base officials, when it was discovered the commander was not "acting within his authority." The original order was issued on the letterhead of Charlie Company, 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment and said effective March 11, any soldier with a "privately owned weapon" was required to submit the information, along with any information about any concealed carry permit the soldier may have, and what state issued the permit… (List members may recall that a post commander in Alaska has banned his troops from carrying concealed off duty [http://www.usarak.army.mil/policies/PUBS-ACROBAT/USARAK_Policies/CGCOFS%20POLICY%20STATEMENT%2020.pdf].)

[long762range]

Army Commander Attempts Registration: A military commander at Fort Campbell in Kentucky demanded his soldiers give him the registration numbers of any guns they own privately and then reveal where they are stored. The order was stopped, according to base officials, when it was discovered the commander was not "acting within his authority." The original order was issued on the letterhead of Charlie Company, 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment and said effective March 11, any soldier with a "privately owned weapon" was required to submit the information, along with any information about any concealed carry permit the soldier may have, and what state issued the permit… (List members may recall that a post commander in Alaska has banned his troops from carrying concealed off duty [http://www.usarak.army.mil/policies/PUBS-ACROBAT/USARAK_Policies/CGCOFS%20POLICY%20STATEMENT%2020.pdf].)

 :oThis is correct.  A company commander did do this and was stopped because it is not army policy.

Here is a more complete account of the incident.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92395

A military commander at Fort Campbell in Kentucky demanded his soldiers give him the registration numbers of any guns they own privately and then reveal where they are stored.

The order was stopped, according to base officials, when it was discovered the commander was not "acting within his authority."

The original order was issued on the letterhead of Charlie Company, 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment and said effective March 11, any soldier with a "privately owned weapon" was required to submit the information, along with any information about any concealed carry permit the soldier may have, and what state issued the permit.


Further, the rule warned, "If any soldier comes into possession of a Privately Owned Weapon following the effective date of this memorandum, he is required to inform the Chain of Command of the above information."

One soldier who objected to the demands circulated the memo, commenting that he lives off post.

"It just seems a little coincidental to me that within 90 days the most anti-firearm president in history is inaugurated, some of the nastiest anti-firearm laws are put on the table in Washington, and then the Army comes around wanting what amounts to a registration on all firearms, even if they are off post, and doesn't provide any reason or purpose as to why," the soldier said.
Base spokeswoman Cathy Gramling told WND the letter apparently was a mistake. She said the base requires anyone bringing a privately owned weapon onto the installation to register it.

"As a response to a number of negligent discharges of privately owned weapons, the command decided to explore how to implement a training program for soldiers with privately owned weapons. Their goal is to identify soldiers with firearms and provide additional safety training to them, much like our motorcycle and driver safety classes," she said.

"Our soldiers train and operate in combat with M-4 carbines and various other military weapons, but not all who purchase their own weapons are properly trained to handle them. Determining which soldiers possess weapons will allow the command to identify the soldiers who may require additional training on them," she said.

Gramling said the memo was "from a subordinate unit commander who, at the time, believed he was acting within his authority." She said requiring the information was halted when it was discovered the commander was not within his authority.

The process has been suspended pending a full review, she said.

"This is not an effort to infringe on soldiers' rights to own firearms," Gramling told WND

[fightingquaker13]

This stuff does piss me off. The reason is that it can get young soldiers in trouble. They'll say if a Colonel or a green beanie can do it so should I. Its like that poor dumb sob who got in trouble for not wearing UN insignia when ordered to and thought he was justified. Sometimes in the army we get orders we don't like or are distasteful. If we think there is justification to disobey,some will. This gives these folks the martyrs they want, the fictional soldier becomes real. They weren't trying to protect our guys' rights, they're trying to rcruit suicide bombers to carry their ideological water for them. Worse, they're doing it under a false flag. This pisses me off. Don't misunderstand, I think that while post 911, a base commander is entitled to make sure onbase weapons are secured (though hopefuly in a sane non-restrictive manner), what a soldier does off base and out of uniform is pretty much thir business. If these guys want to get active duty to oppose a policy, just be up front about it, don't try to trick folks into getting in troubl.

[long762range]

This stuff does piss me off. The reason is that it can get young soldiers in trouble. They'll say if a Colonel or a green beanie can do it so should I. Its like that poor dumb sob who got in trouble for not wearing UN insignia when ordered to and thought he was justified. Sometimes in the army we get orders we don't like or are distasteful. If we think there is justification to disobey,some will. This gives these folks the martyrs they want, the fictional soldier becomes real. They weren't trying to protect our guys' rights, they're trying to rcruit suicide bombers to carry their ideological water for them. Worse, they're doing it under a false flag. This pisses me off. Don't misunderstand, I think that while post 911, a base commander is entitled to make sure onbase weapons are secured (though hopefuly in a sane non-restrictive manner), what a soldier does off base and out of uniform is pretty much thir business. If these guys want to get active duty to oppose a policy, just be up front about it, don't try to trick folks into getting in troubl.

Amen Quaker!

[Sponsor]