Gunboards Forums banner

21 - 29 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,382 Posts
Just wait until the legal definitions of "domestic violence" get widened .....here the non payment ,or late payment of maintenance or child support are now classed as "domestic violence" and proper cause to apply for ,and get a "Apprehended Violence Order" ,which bars the possession of guns.......Once any kind of law goes on the books ,forces are at work to get the effect widened to include gun confiscation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
That (the giving up personally owned firearms) is a new one. Never had to in my decade plus in a green suit. Did have to register them with Provost Marshal in Germany. Soldiers have ALWAYS been obligated to obey local statutory law and ordinances.
Been that way since at least 1994; I recall them briefing us about it when I showed up at Basic. No POWs in any on-post home, and certainly not in the barracks. Ft Sill, Ft Lewis, Ft Benning, Ft Bragg; all the places I was at, I got the exact same briefing.

It wasn't an army regulation, it's local (base commanders and provost marshals). But it was pervasive enough that I think they all learned to do that in the same CGSC class or something. The rules were that you registered your POWs with the MPs and then stored them, tagged and secured, in the unit arms room. When you felt like going shooting, you went and signed out your firearm from the armorer just like any other inventoried weapon, then checked it back in on return.

I remember doing arms-room inventories in the late '90s, and the POWs were always included on the printout. There weren't that many of them, I recall, and in those days I don't remember any hollering about 2A or individual liberties. But I recall reading that at least as late as the Ft Hood shooting, that soldiers there had no POWs because of the post regulations.

I also remember a domestic-violence allegation against a soldier I knew, in which his company commander informed the local cops that he was a firearm owner (he lived off-post). I was in his office when he made that call. I don't know what came of that, but if there was a mechanism for commanders to expect cops to do something about firearms in 2000, I would not be surprised to hear that red-flag orders have already been in place, de facto, for awhile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
844 Posts
You know- you might think this is not really a "thing" but I have had my Armed security personnel lose their jobs because some stupid GF or pissed ex wife found out that all she had to do to get back at them for a bad breakup or a bad anniversary ( really, NO shit) was to CLAIM , not prove, domestic violence and the guy lost his ability to be armed. And then lost his job. NOT convicted, NOT arrested, NOT even charged, and the judge signed the order and the guy had his life ruined. So for those in the .MIL, this could be a huge deal.
It is a "thing". The Military makes Kavanaugh's hearing look fair when it comes to accusations of racism, sexual harassment, and domestic violence. You are absolutely "guilty until proven innocent" to that Chain of Command.

We had an NCO in the unit who had a 15 year old stepdaughter everyone knew "wild child" was an understatement. She decided that she was going to move out of the house at age 15 one morning to live with her just turned 18 boyfriend. This NCO put his foot down, would not let her move out nor quit school.

What did this lovely child do.....she called the cops and accused her Stepfather of sexually abusing her. As she hung up the phone, she realized the gravity of the accusations she just made and dialed back to 911 to cancel the call.
Cumberland County responded with the Police and Child Services. The young lady was taken into protective custody even though she immediately told the responding Police that she lied. Child Services kept her for 24 hours and did a full Psych eval. The Police, Child Services, and the Psychologist all concurred that the young lady was mad at her stepfather and lied about any abuse. None had occurred. That took a day and half.

Ft Braggs Provost Marshal arrested the NCO. He was released to the Chain of Command who put him on immediate confinement to quarters. He was not charged pending investigation. The Chain of Command, Army Family Services, and the Provost Marshals kept him in confinement for 6 months with no charges only to conclude that the young lady was lying because she was mad at her stepfather. It took over a year for the promotion flag to come off his record.
The man was only guilty of loving his stepdaughter and wanting to ensure her success in life. He acted like a parent.

There is no doubt that if this passes, anyone can make an accusation that will halt a soldiers career for a very long time while he proves the accusation is false.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
844 Posts
Been that way since at least 1994; I recall them briefing us about it when I showed up at Basic. No POWs in any on-post home, and certainly not in the barracks. Ft Sill, Ft Lewis, Ft Benning, Ft Bragg; all the places I was at, I got the exact same briefing.

It wasn't an army regulation, it's local (base commanders and provost marshals). But it was pervasive enough that I think they all learned to do that in the same CGSC class or something. The rules were that you registered your POWs with the MPs and then stored them, tagged and secured, in the unit arms room. When you felt like going shooting, you went and signed out your firearm from the armorer just like any other inventoried weapon, then checked it back in on return.

I remember doing arms-room inventories in the late '90s, and the POWs were always included on the printout. There weren't that many of them, I recall, and in those days I don't remember any hollering about 2A or individual liberties. But I recall reading that at least as late as the Ft Hood shooting, that soldiers there had no POWs because of the post regulations.

I also remember a domestic-violence allegation against a soldier I knew, in which his company commander informed the local cops that he was a firearm owner (he lived off-post). I was in his office when he made that call. I don't know what came of that, but if there was a mechanism for commanders to expect cops to do something about firearms in 2000, I would not be surprised to hear that red-flag orders have already been in place, de facto, for awhile.
I have always been allowed to have POW's on base. Some of this is Commanders desecration and you must have had some poor leadership. Living in the Barracks, you had to store them in the Arms Room and coordinate with the Armor to draw them out and check them in.

FT Bragg POW policy also allows POW's to stored in your ON-Post housing and Off-Post housing.

INFORMATIONPAPER
IMSE-BRG-ESM29October 2008

SUBJECT: Privately Owned Weapon (POW) Information


1. Purpose: To provide guidance for registration, storage, andtransportation of POWs.


2. Reference: Fort Bragg Regulation 190-12, Privately Owned Weapons andAmmunition Control and Prohibited Items, 01 DEC 04.


3. Facts:


a.Registration: Registration is required within 5 days from the time an individual begins to reside/stay on post, or from the time the firearm is purchased or acquired. If an individual resides off post but needs to store their weapon on post for more than 5 days, then they must register and store the POW in an acceptable location.


b.Storage: POWs will be kept in an acceptable location IAW FB Reg190-12, regardless of length of stay. Firearms and ammunition will be stored in a secured locked container or gun rack, with precautions taken to ensure they are inaccessible to unauthorized personnel. If an individual resides off post they may store the POW off post or in their unit arms room. If an individual resides on post, in family housing, then the POW may be kept at their house or the service member’s unit arms room. The Soldier’s commander has discretionary authority to require the POW be stored in the unit arms room. If an individual resides in the barracks the POW will be stored in the unit arms room. If an individual is in transient quarters (TDY) the POW will be stored in the affiliated unit arms room or, for a short duration, at the PMO. To store the POW at the PMO the individual must notify the desk sergeant prior to bringing the weapon on post. Once at the PMO the desk sergeant will complete a DA Form 4137, FB Form 1717 and a DA Form 4002. The weapon and all documents will then be placed in an evidence locker. To withdraw the weapon from the PMO the evidence custodian must be present.


c.Transportation: POWs may be directly transported to/from authorized storage, hunting areas, firing ranges, or gun repair shops. Personnel may traverse Fort Bragg with no on-post stops. To transport on post, the POW must be unloaded and placed in an area inaccessible to passengers in the vehicle with the ammunition transported in a separate compartment. If no area is inaccessible then it must be transported in a case and in open view with the ammunition stored separately.
https://bragg.isportsman.net/Regulations.aspx

I did a lot of hunting on Ft Bragg and the Camp MacKall area. Bought a lot of guns, too. Including being ripped off at Jim's Pawn...once.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,903 Posts
I was in the army and was privy to some of my soldiers' concerns about domestic violence. It's a thing. Soldiers are not special; they offend at the same rate anyone else does..
Many would see it as a matter of whether soldiers' wives, girlfriends or targets of opportunity are less special than those of other men.

It is a bit like Lord Justice Blackstone's Ratio, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." What can happen to women is so much worse than not having firearms, that it is better for ten women to be needlessly protected, than one suffer death, injury or unending, everyday fear. A soldier at least has other quarters, good enough for other soldiers, ready and waiting.

You go out in the knowledge that encountering a dangerous felon is mathematically most improbable, and military danger often amounts to a bad week in a career like Sergeant Bilko's. It is quite different from a woman knowing the weekly or monthly incident will happen again and again until it goes really bad, and there is "no discharge in the war".

That is as far as loss of personal firearms and non-molestation orders are concerned. Actual confinement of an NCO, as described, without charges or conviction, sounds like a quite different matter, and an instinctive need to cover one's rear may have come into it. I don't know if he was an adoptive father or legally appointed guardian, but trying to enforce decisions he had no legal right to make might have made a difference.

The girl's quick retraction should, subject to expert counselling/questioning, should have made some difference. But rape, domestic violence and child molestation enforcement is notoriously plagued by reluctance to complain or testify. It is common for retractions to be made when the events did take place. Very possibly they got it wrong, and very possibly they didn't do as much investigation as they should. But they thought they were balancing up a temporarily stalled career, and the lasting effects of being sexually abused in what used to be called childhood?

Many years ago a soldier in Northern Ireland was jailed for killing a young girl in a car which ran a roadblock. They were just apolitical teenage car thieves, and his conviction turned on the belief that he fired from behind, which wasn't self-defence. The army is normally pretty cautious about criminality, but made the unusual statement that they would have his job waiting if he got out.

He stayed in jail when undoubted terrorists were amnestied. Well, I never met a British soldier who, though they would be glad enough to see those people dead, didn't understand that they were fighting for what they believed in, and superior to hoodlums with no such motive. Eventually new forensic techniques caused the government to have a court declare his conviction unsafe, He was released and compensated, and last I heard was serving as a sergeant in Afghanistan. His sacrifice was just as much part of what brought peace to Northern Ireland, as being shot at would have been.

The point is that sometimes innocent or part-way innocent people have to suffer to maintain civilised values.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
I have always been allowed to have POW's on base. Some of this is Commanders desecration and you must have had some poor leadership. Living in the Barracks, you had to store them in the Arms Room and coordinate with the Armor to draw them out and check them in.

FT Bragg POW policy also allows POW's to stored in your ON-Post housing and Off-Post housing.



https://bragg.isportsman.net/Regulations.aspx

I did a lot of hunting on Ft Bragg and the Camp MacKall area. Bought a lot of guns, too. Including being ripped off at Jim's Pawn...once.
Nice to see they're letting on-post guys keep their firearms now. That's a welcome change.

But more germane to the point of this thread is that that can be rescinded at any time, anyway, and that that's always been the case. A military red-flag provision seems redundant to me. From time immemorial, all that has ever had to happen was for a SM's chain of command to get wind of an abuse allegation, and then the boom is lowered for everything up to and including confinement.

Why bother with this kind of law? I dunno.

Some of my leadership was good, some was poor, but as I say: everywhere I went, in training, TDY, or permanent party, it was the same in those days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
844 Posts
Nice to see they're letting on-post guys keep their firearms now. That's a welcome change.

But more germane to the point of this thread is that that can be rescinded at any time, anyway, and that that's always been the case. A military red-flag provision seems redundant to me. From time immemorial, all that has ever had to happen was for a SM's chain of command to get wind of an abuse allegation, and then the boom is lowered for everything up to and including confinement.

Why bother with this kind of law? I dunno.

Some of my leadership was good, some was poor, but as I say: everywhere I went, in training, TDY, or permanent party, it was the same in those days.
It is political and nothing else.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
48,440 Posts
An fully trained Base with and handful armed group...looks like a insufficient policing force?
open for multiple weaknesses scheduled..at post far from places to respond to quickly..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
844 Posts
Many would see it as a matter of whether soldiers' wives, girlfriends or targets of opportunity are less special than those of other men.

It is a bit like Lord Justice Blackstone's Ratio, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." What can happen to women is so much worse than not having firearms, that it is better for ten women to be needlessly protected, than one suffer death, injury or unending, everyday fear. A soldier at least has other quarters, good enough for other soldiers, ready and waiting.

You go out in the knowledge that encountering a dangerous felon is mathematically most improbable, and military danger often amounts to a bad week in a career like Sergeant Bilko's. It is quite different from a woman knowing the weekly or monthly incident will happen again and again until it goes really bad, and there is "no discharge in the war".

That is as far as loss of personal firearms and non-molestation orders are concerned. Actual confinement of an NCO, as described, without charges or conviction, sounds like a quite different matter, and an instinctive need to cover one's rear may have come into it. I don't know if he was an adoptive father or legally appointed guardian, but trying to enforce decisions he had no legal right to make might have made a difference.

The girl's quick retraction should, subject to expert counselling/questioning, should have made some difference. But rape, domestic violence and child molestation enforcement is notoriously plagued by reluctance to complain or testify. It is common for retractions to be made when the events did take place. Very possibly they got it wrong, and very possibly they didn't do as much investigation as they should. But they thought they were balancing up a temporarily stalled career, and the lasting effects of being sexually abused in what used to be called childhood?

Many years ago a soldier in Northern Ireland was jailed for killing a young girl in a car which ran a roadblock. They were just apolitical teenage car thieves, and his conviction turned on the belief that he fired from behind, which wasn't self-defence. The army is normally pretty cautious about criminality, but made the unusual statement that they would have his job waiting if he got out.

He stayed in jail when undoubted terrorists were amnestied. Well, I never met a British soldier who, though they would be glad enough to see those people dead, didn't understand that they were fighting for what they believed in, and superior to hoodlums with no such motive. Eventually new forensic techniques caused the government to have a court declare his conviction unsafe, He was released and compensated, and last I heard was serving as a sergeant in Afghanistan. His sacrifice was just as much part of what brought peace to Northern Ireland, as being shot at would have been.

The point is that sometimes innocent or part-way innocent people have to suffer to maintain civilised values.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

----John Stuart Mill
 
21 - 29 of 29 Posts
Top