Transferring to an Army base... but I am Navy
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Transferring to an Army base... but I am Navy

  1. Transferring to an Army base... but I am Navy

    So my question to you is:

    If you were transferring to another military installation and you were from a different branch of service, would you register your firearms with the base or just keep them in your residence? I ask because I have a large safe with my firearms and am Navy, but I will be transferring to an Army installation and staying in base housing. They are asking for my firearm information. I really don't want to give them that info. What would you do?

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    An Alternate Reality, I Assure You...
    Posts
    5,115
    Whatever installation you're residing on is the one's you must comply with. Also, I don't like your Aqua-flage... jus' sayin'.
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    [*]Don't be afraid to use sarcasm, mockery and humiliation. They don't respect you. There's no need to pretend you respect them.
    Operation Veterans Relief: http://www.opvr.org/home.html

  4. #3
    Living on base requires providing the Provost Marshall with your weapon information. Mainly to help them with recovery of them if stolen. Living in the barracks, you are required to have them locked in the arms room.
    "FIRE IN THE HOLE"

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by evolve View Post
    So my question to you is:

    If you were transferring to another military installation and you were from a different branch of service, would you register your firearms with the base or just keep them in your residence? I ask because I have a large safe with my firearms and am Navy, but I will be transferring to an Army installation and staying in base housing. They are asking for my firearm information. I really don't want to give them that info. What would you do?
    I am assuming that nobody is requiring you to live in base housing (which is different than the barracks)? When you accept base housing, you agree to abide by the regulations of said housing, part of which is usually registering firearms with base security. You don't want to abide by the regulations...than live somewhere else. It's that simple. Get caught violating the regulations and at a minimum you will be barred from living in base housing ever again. Base housing is a privilege, not a right. If you are being required to live on base and don't comply with the regulations, then it becomes an issue of unwillingess to follow orders, which can either go towards disciplinary action - or administrative seperation from service if you can convince them that following orders would go against your good conscience, religion, etc.

    Even if you are being ordered to live in base housing.... the US military is still VOLUNTARY. You agreed to abide by lawful regulations and orders. It's right in the oath you took. So, you have to decide for yourself whether it violates the Constitution for the military to require you to disclose ownership of firearms to them. Disclosure of personal firearms would be a 4th Amendment argument, not a 2nd Amendment argument. Confiscation and bans on firearms possession becomes the 2nd Amendment issue.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by nosreme View Post
    Military people having to follow orders is not a function of voluntariness of service or of the oath. It's a function of military status.

    Disclosure of firearms is not a 4th amendment issue. (It might involve 5th amendment/Article 31 UCMJ implications if asked of a firearms-violation suspect). What provisions of the constitution may or may not apply is way beyond what's necessary to address the OP's question, so there's no point in adding erroneous constitutional commentary to what otherwise is a pretty good answer.
    Well, aren't you the expert....

    10 USC 502 - Enlistment oath: who may administer | Title 10 - Armed Forces | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
    10 USC 502

    (a) Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
    “I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
    So....explain to us how following orders is not a function of the oath of enlistment?
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Well, aren't you the expert....

    10 USC 502 - Enlistment oath: who may administer | Title 10 - Armed Forces | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
    10 USC 502

    So....explain to us how following orders is not a function of the oath of enlistment?
    Yes, as a matter of fact, I am. Oaths don't confer jurisdiction. The UCMJ does.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnerbob View Post
    Whatever installation you're residing on is the one's you must comply with. Also, I don't like your Aqua-flage... jus' sayin'.
    What in the world is "Aqua-flage"?
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    What in the world is "Aqua-flage"?
    Forget it... found it... and I have to agree with you. Yikes! That's hideous.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  10. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by nosreme View Post
    Yes, as a matter of fact, I am. Oaths don't confer jurisdiction. The UCMJ does.
    Unless the person voluntarily takes the Oath and voluntarily signs the contract of enlistment or voluntarily accepts a commission, the UCMJ has no applicability to them. Military members currently volunteer to come under the authority of the UCMJ. The point is, the OP voluntarily agreed to become subject to the orders of the officers appointed over him, including an order to register his firearms with base security if he chooses to live in base housing, and to forego possession of personal firearms in barracks that he might be assigned to live in.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Unless the person voluntarily takes the Oath and voluntarily signs the contract of enlistment or voluntarily accepts a commission, the UCMJ has no applicability to them. Military members currently volunteer to come under the authority of the UCMJ. The point is, the OP voluntarily agreed to become subject to the orders of the officers appointed over him, including an order to register his firearms with base security if he chooses to live in base housing, and to forego possession of personal firearms in barracks that he might be assigned to live in.
    Oaths solemnize events like commissioning and enlistment. Legally, they aren't determinative of very much. In fact there are any number of appellate cases where defendants (accuseds in militaryspeak) in courts-martial asserted--and proved--that they hadn't taken an oath, or taken a proper oath (like not repeating it in formation oaths, leaving out the statuorily-prescribed reference to god, etc) or properly filled out the enlistment forms, arguing that they were not subject to military jurisdiction because their enlistments were void as a result of a defective--and therefore invalid--oath. They lost--without exception. Taking the oath and voluntarily entering the Service certainly are big moral deals with important moral dimensions as well as ones of personal and professional integrity, but they are not what obligates the OP to comply with the (idiotic) rules or what will get the OP into trouble if he doesn't comply with applicable military gun rules, however stupid and CYA they might be.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast