- Messages
- 730
- Reactions
- 16
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
what are they afraid of?
Yet another Washington politician meddling in the affairs of the US Military, second-guessing uniformed officers regarding what is necessary or appropriate for US military forces? If he gets to do this, I guess Congress may legitimately require the military to accept openly-gay service personnel (as long as they keep their sex lives off-base, that is).
Over a period of some months, NRA members in the Armed Forces have called NRA's attention to the fact that certain military base commanders, exercising arbitrary authority given them under military law and regulations, have issued orders violating military personnel's Second Amendment rights. In a particularly egregious example, Fort Riley, Kansas, has imposed a preposterous regulation that, among other things, (1) requires the registration, with Fort Riley, of its soldiers' privately-owned firearms kept off-base, and those of the soldiers' family members residing anywhere in Kansas, (2) prohibits soldiers who have firearm-carrying permits from carrying firearms for protection off-base, and (3) authorizes unit commanders to set arbitrary limits on the caliber of firearms and ammunition their troops may privately own.
Concurrently, following the multiple shooting on Fort Hood last year, allegedly committed with one or more firearms brought onto the base in violation of base regulations, the Department of Defense (DOD) began working on a regulation that, among other things, would require military commanders to require troops to register privately owned firearms kept off-base, and authorize such commanders to require troops living off-base to keep privately-owned firearms and ammunition locked in separate containers, the latter a restriction of the same type as, but more restrictive than, a law struck down by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). The D.C. law, the Court concluded, "makes it impossible for citizens to use [firearms] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
To nullify existing military orders and regulations that violate certain Second Amendment rights of military and civilian DOD personnel, and to preempt other orders and regulations of the sort, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. Sen. Inhofe's amendment, adopted on May 27 by the Senate Armed Services Committee:
* States that "[T]he 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 owned or operated by the Department of Defense."
* Nullifies military orders and regulations of the types the amendment prohibits
* Requires DOD to destroy all gun ownership records of the types the amendment prohibits
* Preserves DOD's authority to "regulate the possession, carrying, or other use of a firearm, ammunition, or other weapon" by personnel on-duty or in military uniform
* Preserves DOD's authority to "create and maintain records relating to an investigation, prosecution, or adjudication of an alleged violation of law (including regulations) not prohibited by the amendment, including matters related to whether a member of the Armed Forces constitutes a threat to himself or others."
I was under the impression that the military could only control the placement and/or ownership of firearms of military members if it were to be kept on a military base.
But, it seems like a good bill. Unless there's something hidden.
Edit: Reading the link answered my question.
On the surface, it seems like an ugly irony that someone who swears to uphold and defend the Constitution doesn't get to benefit from the Bill of Rights (2nd Amendment in this case) like regular citizens do. Whether or not it ruffles feathers, if you actually take a look at the UCMJ and study some case law about why this is, you'll see how it makes sense on several levels. Below is some info & some links to explain.
UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE
SUB CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
801. ART. 1. DEFINITIONS.
802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:
(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.
805. ART. 5. TERRITORIAL APPLICABILITY OF THIS CHAPTER
This chapter applies in all places.
Quote below taken from page 41 of Department of Defense notice at: <broken link removed>
"UCMJ Military Personnel
Military personnel are subject to UCMJ jurisdiction 24/7, while on or off duty, while on or off military reservation, and worldwide
Members of the Reserve Components are subject to UCMJ when performing active duty or training (National Guard when in Federal Status)
Retired regular members of the armed forces who are entitled to pay are subject to UCMJ
As a general rule, military family members and civilian employees are not subject to UCMJ"
WHAT IS TERRITORIAL STATUS?
The italicized quote below about territorial jurisdiction is taken from the first url below, which is a link extending from the second url
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/20mcrm.htm)
"US Attorneys > USAM > Title 9 > Criminal Resource Manual 664
prev | next | Criminal Resource Manual
664 Territorial Jurisdiction
Of the several categories listed in 18 U.S.C. § 7, Section 7(3) is the most significant, and provides:
The term "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States," as used in this title, includes: . . .
(3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.
As is readily apparent, this subsection, and particularly its second clause, bears a striking resemblance to the 17th Clause of Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution. This clause provides:
The Congress shall have power. . . To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, be Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
(Emphasis added.) The constitutional phrase "exclusive legislation" is the equivalent of the statutory expression "exclusive jurisdiction." See James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 141 (1937), citing, Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647, 652 (1930)."
Article 1, Section 8 is the Constitutional source for why military members don't have access to Bill of Rights protections like regular citizens do. The case below has several passages that explain why. Click the link below to read the full case and get a better understanding of how it is that military personnel under territorial jurisdiction can be lawfully subjected to treatment you and I would chafe at.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=354&invol=1
REID v. COVERT, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)
354 U.S. 1
REID, SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JAIL, v. COVERT. 
ON REHEARING. * 
No. 701, October Term, 1955. 
Argued May 3, 1956; decided June 11, 1956; rehearing granted November 5, 1956; reargued February 27, 1957; 
Decided June 10, 1957.
"Article I, 8, cl. 14 empowers Congress "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." It has been held that this creates an exception to the normal method of trial in civilian courts as provided by the Constitution and permits Congress to authorize military trial of members of the armed services without all the safeguards given an accused by Article III and the Bill of Rights. 36 But if the language of Clause 14 is given its natural meaning, 37 the power granted does not extend to civilians - even though they may be dependents living with servicemen on a military base."
"It is true that the Constitution expressly grants Congress power to make all rules necessary and proper to govern and regulate those persons who are serving in the 'land and naval Forces.' "
"Under the grand design of the Constitution civilian courts are the normal repositories of power to try persons charged with crimes against the United States. And to protect persons brought before these courts, Article III and the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments establish the right to trial by jury, to indictment by a grand jury and a number of other specific safeguards. By way of contrast the jurisdiction of military tribunals is a very limited and extraordinary jurisdiction derived from the cryptic language in Art. I, 8, and, at most, was intended to be only a narrow exception to the normal and preferred method of trial in courts of law."
"Traditionally, military justice has been a rough form of justice emphasizing summary procedures, [354 U.S. 1, 36] speedy convictions and stern penalties with a view to maintaining obedience and fighting fitness in the ranks. Because of its very nature and purpose the military must place great emphasis on discipline and efficiency. Correspondingly, there has always been less emphasis in the military on protecting the rights of the individual than in civilian society and in civilian courts."
"Notwithstanding the recent reforms, military trial does not give an accused the same protection which exists in the civil courts. Looming far above all other deficiencies of the military trial, of course, is the absence of trial by jury before an independent judge after an indictment by a grand jury. Moreover the reforms are merely statutory; Congress - and perhaps the President - can reinstate former practices, subject to any limitations imposed by the Constitution, whenever it desires. 67 As yet it has not been clearly settled to what extent the Bill of Rights and other protective parts of the Constitution apply to military trials. 68 [354 U.S. 1, 38]
It must be emphasized that every person who comes within the jurisdiction of courts-martial is subject to military law - law that is substantially different from the law which governs civilian society. Military law is, in many respects, harsh law which is frequently cast in very sweeping and vague terms. 69 It emphasizes the iron hand of discipline more that it does the even scales of justice. Moreover, it has not yet been definitely established to what extent the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, or his delegates, can promulgate, supplement or change substantive military law as well as the procedures of military courts in time of peace, or in time of war. 70 In any event, Congress has given the President broad discretion to provide the rules governing military trials. 71 For example, in these very cases a technical manual issued under the President's name with regard to the defense of insanity in military trials was of critical importance in the convictions of Mrs. Covert and Mrs. Smith. If the President can provide [354 U.S. 1, 39] rules of substantive law as well as procedure, then he and his military subordinates exercise legislative, executive and judicial powers with respect to those subject to military trials. Such blending of functions in one branch of the Government is the objectionable thing which the draftsmen of the Constitution endeavored to prevent by providing for the separation of governmental powers.
In summary, 'it still remains true that military tribunals have not been and probably never can be constituted in such way that they can have the same kind of qualifications that the Constitution has deemed essential to fair trials of civilians in federal courts.' 72 In part this is attributable to the inherent differences in values and attitudes that separate the military establishment from civilian society. In the military, by necessity, emphasis must be placed on the security and order of the group rather than on the value and integrity of the individual."
Great post, thank you.
As I see it, the Constitution is a list of rights the government recognizes it can't take away without just cause as the people are born with them automatically. If the government wants to have a list of rights over itself - the agents of government - that should be elsewhere, not in the Constitution.
I have served, active and reserve, for 40 years (since June, 1970), USMC and US Army. We ALWAYS were restricted from having personal firearms in barracks. On-post quarters was not a problem until recently. Off-post quarters was never a problem until just now.
Many Soldiers and Marines in Vietnam and before purchased private shotguns and pistols and carried them to the war zone. We can't now since GEN Tommy Franks instituted General Order 1 in CENTCOM. (He also prohibited sex, alchohol, porn, drugs, and pets. It still stands in Iraq & Afghanistan.)
Recently, some PC commanders got burned for trying to require registration of weapons in off-post quarters - the furor these acts generated caused the offending officers to back off. (Fort Bliss commander and a company commander at Ft Knox, I believe.)
Now, we have an administration which wants to make everyone "safe" by denying the means to self-defense. As with most great "social experiments", they begin with the military, where they think that they can just order it to be done, and it's done.
This practice has had both positive and negative outcomes for our Military, and our society: Racial segregation was instituted by Woodrow Wilson, desegregation was forced during the Korean War by Harry Truman, "beer in the barracks" during the seventies (essentially they curtailed disciplinary measures for minor infractions - equate to Child Protective Services telling you that you are responsible for what your child does, but you must neither raise your voice to, nor put your hands on them).
The bottom line to all this is that EVERY CREATURE HAS THE INHERENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS OWN SELF DEFENSE. Man has neither claws nor big teeth, nor poisonous secretions from his skin to defeat predators. He is the tool-maker and user. Leftist lawmakers, and "Politically Correct" commanders who institute gun and knife control to keep people safe remove the means most useful to meet that need.
2nd Amendment guarantees the right [TO WHOM] to the tools necessary to keep you and yours safe: Our Service Members need this just as much as any civilian.
Thus, this is one Right which must NOT be pre-empted, even in the name of "Good Order and Discipline"!
And it is NOT easy to just go draw a machine gun from an arms room if you want one! Ammo and weapons are STRICTLY controlled on military bases, though there have been some anecdotal exceptions from time to time.
Martini Up: "Agents of Government", including Soldiers, are also citizens.