Fort Bliss requiring off base troops to register private guns

[ericire12]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100151

Fort Bliss soldiers told to register private guns
Document requires off-post troops to reveal ownership of firearms
Posted: June 05, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Another major U.S. military base is requiring soldiers who live off the premises to provide descriptions, serial numbers, calibers, makes and models of any of the guns they own privately, and do not take onto the premises of the installation.

According to a copy of a "Weapons Registration Form" submitted to WND by a soldier from Fort Bliss in Texas, the soldiers have to provide their own information including Social Security number, a physical description and addresses and telephone numbers, along with the serial number, type, action, make, caliber, finish, location stored, model, overall length and barrel description of each weapon they own.

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 that off-post information.

However, the form used for the registrations states 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."

A spokesman at Army headquarters, Lt. Col. Lee Packnett, told WND that he wasn't aware of a systemwide effort to have solders' privately owned weapons registered, but confirmed that individual installations could be taking that action.

WND reported several months ago when 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.

At that time 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.

A soldier who returned to Fort Bliss from his third tour of duty in the Middle East and was handed the registration form contacted WND about the latest situation. He requested anonymity.

He said he was appalled by what happened, and many of his fellow soldiers are too.

The soldier questioned the jurisdiction that military officials would have off-base. Offutt told WND that in fact, there is no requirement, despite what the form states.

"They're also asked to register their weapons even if they keep them off poast," she said. "That's very difficult to enforce. There's no jurisdiction for the military off the installation."

She said she would request an explanation from base officers for the mandatory reporting requirements on the base form. She later confirmed to WND base commanders had affirmed the policy of requiring off-post guns to be registered on the base, but also said the base has no jurisdiction outside its borders, and the only way a problem would come to their attention is if something happened.

She said one of the reasons behind the policy is that the military wants to take "a close look" at those who have access to weapons. She described the registration as a "safety and security" issue.

Second Amendment advocates have been alarmed in recent months 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 for that.

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.

The Department of Defense also implemented a policy that limited the supply of ammunition available to the private gun owners by requiring destruction of fired military cartridge brass, a move that was reversed shortly after it became public.

[Teresa Heilevang]

If this has been posted .. tell me. I couldn't find it anywhere..

President Obama supports an international treaty creating sweeping gun control efforts.


*You might want to see this video as well

Commie Rahm Emanuel to Disarm America:"#1 Issue", Gun Owners are Terrorists
 



House Bill Aims to Strip Rightwing Extremists of Second Amendment Right
http://www.infowars.com/house-bill-ai...

[tombogan03884]

Voting will not remove these traitors. We have exhausted the Soap box and the ballot box, It's past time to open the third box on these communist scum.

[Kid Shelleen]

Voting will not remove these traitors. We have exhausted the Soap box and the ballot box, It's past time to open the third box on these communist scum.

Once again Tom you've got that right. It time for all of us that are "clinging to our guns and religion" to rip open box #3.

[Hazcat]

Voting will not remove these traitors. We have exhausted the Soap box and the ballot box, It's past time to open the third box on these communist scum.

The third box is the jury box and that one is iffy right now.

[Sponsor]

[Kid Shelleen]

The third box is the jury box and that one is iffy right now.

I was thinking of the third box more as a box of Whup Ass.

[tombogan03884]

The third box is the jury box and that one is iffy right now.

No Haz, #3 is the CARTRIDGE box.

[Kid Shelleen]

U.N. international gun ban treaties and UN international gun registration treaties scare the Hell out of me, but fortunately they can't fly without Senate ratification.

I was surprised to see Lou Dobbs of CNN (Communist News Network) sound so insensed at the idea. Maybe we have more support than we might think when it comes to the U.N. dictating American policy.

As for the soldiers having to register their private weapons, while I don't like it, there is not much that we can do about it. The Constitution doesn't apply in the military, only the U.C.M.J.

[tombogan03884]

 Personally I would ignore it for any weapons not stored in the Arms room.

[Teresa Heilevang]

I sent some friends who are not on DownRange this video and information..
 I got this back from one of them:

That was interesting about the SIFTA treaty, but not entirely truthful.  Salient points that are missing, mis-stated, or glossed over by that blurb.

The treaty is legally meaningless unless and until it is ratified by the Senate.  The Senate will never ratify it, and everyone knows that, so there has been no attempt on the part of the Administration to get it ratified.  It will just sit there and rot.  Bringing it home was just a political gesture to Mexico that we will work with them to stop the trafficking in ILLEGAL guns. 

Even if the treaty were ratified, it is expressly stated that it is SUBJECT TO the U.S. Constitution (including the Second Amendment), and LOCAL laws relating to guns.  So, the Supreme Court would have to wipe out the Second Amendment, and your state and local governments would have to wipe out their own gun protections for this treaty to affect the ordinary citizen.

The treat does NOT set up a registry of gun owners for any purpose, much less delivery to foreign governments.  It simply says that the parties to the treaty (which will never be ratified anyway) will share information relevant to stopping ILLEGAL arms trafficking, and then only IF they already have it and IF it is acceptable under local (American, state and federal) law.  Under this meaningless piece of paper, no registry is set up, no laws are changed, and nothing would affect the lawful gun-owning citizen.

Nothing to worry about.  If the treaty passed tomorrow, we would keep our guns and they would be legal and un-registered.  Nothing would change for us.  Since it will never pass, nothing will change anyway.

What I worry about is the courts and legislatures who consistently increase the police power of the government, to where we have no privacy in our lives.  If we can be searched and spied up by the police agents of the state, our right to bear arms is in far, far more danger.  In my fairly conservative state, with a Republican governor, virtually all police seize and firearm they come across, and it ALWAYS costs a lot more in legal fees than the gun is worth to get it back.  The practical effect is government seizure of all firearms it finds.  If the cops come to my house because the neighbors complained about the stereo, they will TAKE any gun they see.  The only way to stop that is to DECREASE police power in general, and specifically police power to search, seize and surveil the citizens of this great nation.

--
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
 - Thomas Jefferson