Congress blocks military orders that restrict gun rights

[Hazcat]

Posted by David Hardy · 9 March 2011 10:52 AM

This is aimed at base commanders who have ordered that soldiers report and register privately-owned firearms kept at their residences off-based.

The Public Law version is not yet online, but here's a link to the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act as introduced, which became Pub. L. 111-383. Section 1062 (on PDF pages 253-54) provides:

"SEC. 1062. PROHIBITION ON INFRINGING ON THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO LAWFULLY ACQUIRE, POSSESS, OWN, CARRY, AND OTHERWISE USE PRIVATELY OWNED FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, AND OTHER WEAPONS.

(a) In General- Except as provided in subsection (c), the Secretary of Defense shall not prohibit, issue any requirement relating to, or collect or record any information relating to the otherwise lawful acquisition, possession, ownership, carrying, or other use of a privately owned firearm, privately owned ammunition, or another privately owned weapon by a member of the Armed Forces or civilian employee of the Department of Defense on property that is not--
(1) a military installation; or
(2) any other property that is owned or operated by the Department of Defense.
(b) Existing Regulations and Records-

(1) REGULATIONS- Any regulation promulgated before the date of enactment of this Act shall have no force or effect to the extent that it requires conduct prohibited by this section.

(2) RECORDS- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall destroy any record containing information described in subsection (a) that was collected before the date of enactment of this Act.

(c) Rule of Construction- Subsection (a) shall not be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of Defense to--
(1) create or maintain records relating to, or regulate the possession, carrying, or other use of a firearm, ammunition, or other weapon by a member of the Armed Forces or civilian employee of the Department of Defense while--
(A) engaged in official duties on behalf of the Department of Defense; or
(B) wearing the uniform of an Armed Force; or
(2) create or maintain records relating to an investigation, prosecution, or adjudication of an alleged violation of law (including regulations not prohibited under subsection (a)), including matters related to whether a member of the Armed Forces constitutes a threat to the member or others.

(d) Review- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall--
(1) conduct a comprehensive review of the privately owned weapons policy of the Department of Defense, including legal and policy issues regarding the regulation of privately owned firearms off of a military installation, as recommended by the Department of Defense Independent Review Related to Fort Hood; and
(2) submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report regarding the findings of and recommendations relating to the review conducted under paragraph (1), including any recommendations for adjustments to the requirements under this section.

(e) Military Installation Defined- In this section, the term `military installation' has the meaning given that term under section 2687(e)(1) of title 10, United States Code. "

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2011/03/congress_blocks.php

[JC5123]

Personally, I don't understand why all military personnel are not required to be armed at all times while on duty. Kinda seems stupid to me that during basic you are taught that your weapon is your life, but as soon as you are out you are almost never allowed to carry one.  

[Ichiban]

Personally, I don't understand why all military personnel are not required to be armed at all times while on duty. Kinda seems stupid to me that during basic you are taught that your weapon is your life, but as soon as you are out you are almost never allowed to carry one.  

It would scare the children - of all ages.

[Timothy]

Personally, I don't understand why all military personnel are not required to be armed at all times while on duty. Kinda seems stupid to me that during basic you are taught that your weapon is your life, but as soon as you are out you are almost never allowed to carry one.  

My last duty station on the remote northern coast of CA, we were required to stand perimeter watch on the base for our duty cycle about once every two weeks.  We were techie spooks for the most part.  No Marines guarding anything, we were on our own against the local hippies and such..

Anyway, they gave us a 1911 with NO ammo or mags and an empty 870 pump riot gun with no shells to perform this task.

I found out a few years ago why this was the case.  Appears that back in 1957 when they were building the "secret" base, one of the squids was on guard duty with his own firearm and mistakenly executed/murdered or otherwise killed deader than shit, one of the local farmers best stud bulls when the bull tried to invade!

 

[Grizzle_Bear]

I found out a few years ago why this was the case.  Appears that back in 1957 when they were building the "secret" base, one of the squids was on guard duty with his own firearm and mistakenly executed/murdered or otherwise killed deader than shit, one of the local farmers best stud bulls when the bull tried to invade!

That was a Commie spy in a clever disguise!

GB

[Sponsor]

[pioneer]

Personally, I don't understand why all military personnel are not required to be armed at all times while on duty. Kinda seems stupid to me that during basic you are taught that your weapon is your life, but as soon as you are out you are almost never allowed to carry one.  

As a former base armorer, I can tell you why.  Alcohol and testosterone are the biggest reasons. 

[tombogan03884]

Personally, I don't understand why all military personnel are not required to be armed at all times while on duty. Kinda seems stupid to me that during basic you are taught that your weapon is your life, but as soon as you are out you are almost never allowed to carry one. 

As a former base armorer, I can tell you why.  Alcohol and testosterone are the biggest reasons. 

You missed that part.

Actually I think it has to do with the fact that so little Stateside duty actually involves fire arms.
Most of the time they would just be in the way.

[fightingquaker13]

My last duty station on the remote northern coast of CA, we were required to stand perimeter watch on the base for our duty cycle about once every two weeks.  We were techie spooks for the most part.  No Marines guarding anything, we were on our own against the local hippies and such..

Anyway, they gave us a 1911 with NO ammo or mags and an empty 870 pump riot gun with no shells to perform this task.


 

This pisses me off beyond words. I get (though I don't agree) with the "no guns for the teenagers argument. What drives me insane is sending some out on a mission with an empty wepon. Far better that they had no weapon at all. You are setting them up as an armed target and they can't defend themselves. This isn't just a joke, it's criminally negligent homicide. Doees anyone remember the Beruit bombings? If you carry a gun, carry it loaded and be ready to use it or leave the damn thing at home. My Granddad taught me that at about age seven when he taught me firearms safety and that a gun was not a toy, but something you always took seriously.. Why the hell hasn't the Pentagon gotten the message?
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

When I was in the Marines I was on Guard one night, My Company CO was Officer of the day, he came out checking posts, took my rifle to inspect it, and asked me "Whats your 5th General Order?"
I had a brain lock, I just could not remember something I knew till he asked, so I replied "Walk my post a mile a minute, with an M-16 with nothing in it".  He asked if I was sure, I said is it "Walk my post from flank to flank, and take no shit from any rank" ?
He was an old Mustang getting ready to retire, he just shook his head and left.