The following is an email I received this morning. it should be evident why I'm posting it without identifying the author:
David,
Really enjoy reading your posts and the Examiner column. Keep up the good fight.
This is a little something that happened to me the other day, that struck me as a bit ominous.
The military, despite being an organization whose bread and butter is firearms, is one of the most namby-pamby outfits when it comes to personally owned firearms. If you reside on post or wish to bring your weapon on post to use the post range, all weapons must be registered by serial number with the Provost Marshall. When you turn this information in, the Provost Marshall will conduct a NICS background check on you to see if you are even eligible to own these weapons, and presumably to see if there are any serial numbers listed as stolen with local law enforcement. These serial numbers are now in a federal data-base that is maintained on the post where you reside and with the unit commander. If a soldier is E-4 and below and lives in the barracks all weapons must be stored in the unit arms room and are accounted for daily through the unit armorer's inventory inspection. If a soldier is E-4 and below and lives in government housing the commander may authorize the soldier to keep the weapon in his quarters, but often does not. Regardless of the soldier's rank, if there are allegations of domestic violence, the commander may order all personally owned weapons to be surrendered to the arms room.
Nothing too crazy here, this has all been policy for years. Yesterday, however there was something different that immediately made me take notice. Our squadron is preparing for a regimental command inspection, and as part of that regiment will be looking at the commander's list of all personally owned weapons. In preparation for this, all soldiers were ordered to make sure that all weapons were registered with the Provost Marshall, whether they lived on post or not. I asked for clarification on this and it seems the squadron commander (O5/LTC) wants all personally owned weapons registered regardless of where they are stored.
There are a couple of possible explanations for this. It may be that the SCO is being over-zealous in his efforts to show what a good scout he is. The army has a trend towards, "You can add to, but not take away from", any given procedure or regulation. You may have seen this effect in Alaska, where that knucklehead post commander banned the troops stationed there from any kind
Nothing too crazy here, this has all been policy for years. Yesterday, however there was something different that immediately made me take notice. Our squadron is preparing for a regimental command inspection, and as part of that regiment will be looking at the commander's list of all personally owned weapons. In preparation for this, all soldiers were ordered to make sure that all weapons were registered with the Provost Marshall, whether they lived on post or not. I asked for clarification on this and it seems the squadron commander (O5/LTC) wants all personally owned weapons registered regardless of where they are stored.
There are a couple of possible explanations for this. It may be that the SCO is being over-zealous in his efforts to show what a good scout he is. The army has a trend towards, "You can add to, but not take away from", any given procedure or regulation. You may have seen this effect in Alaska, where that knucklehead post commander banned the troops stationed there from any kind
There are a couple of possible explanations for this. It may be that the SCO is being over-zealous in his efforts to show what a good scout he is. The army has a trend towards, "You can add to, but not take away from", any given procedure or regulation. You may have seen this effect in Alaska, where that knucklehead post commander banned the troops stationed there from any kind of concealed carry.
This directive, if it did not come from our squadron command, may have come from regiment or from the post commander. If it did than it is likely little more than someone's personal agenda being exercised. Field grade officers are funny creatures. Utterly convinced of their righteousness, they can come up with some downright goofy stuff. I once had a battalion commander who was convinced that the NRA was an extremist organization and soldiers were not allowed to be present at functions affiliated with them. Wow.
If however, this directive did not come from any of these sources then it came from higher up in the army, and I find that troubling. It seems like a minor point, but it would indicate a major shift in policy. I will let you draw your own conclusions as to possible motives, if this is indeed the case. I have made no more inquiries, but I am keeping my ear to the ground,
I cannot speak for the other soldiers in this command, or their on how likely they are to comply with this directive. As for me, I am moving from this post in a few weeks and will not bother with this. When I get to where I am going I will be residing off post, nor will I ever live on post again.
I may decide to never own a firearm again...but my wife is sure nuts about her gun collection.Your experiences along these lines will be welcome. Please feel free to share them in "Comments."
This directive, if it did not come from our squadron command, may have come from regiment or from the post commander. If it did than it is likely little more than someone's personal agenda being exercised. Field grade officers are funny creatures. Utterly convinced of their righteousness, they can come up with some downright goofy stuff. I once had a battalion commander who was convinced that the NRA was an extremist organization and soldiers were not allowed to be present at functions affiliated with them. Wow.
If however, this directive did not come from any of these sources then it came from higher up in the army, and I find that troubling. It seems like a minor point, but it would indicate a major shift in policy. I will let you draw your own conclusions as to possible motives, if this is indeed the case. I have made no more inquiries, but I am keeping my ear to the ground,
I cannot speak for the other soldiers in this command, or their on how likely they are to comply with this directive. As for me, I am moving from this post in a few weeks and will not bother with this. When I get to where I am going I will be residing off post, nor will I ever live on post again.
I may decide to never own a firearm again...but my wife is sure nuts about her gun collection.Your experiences along these lines will be welcome. Please feel free to share them in "Comments."