no more gun on the base

[SWJewellTN]

Im calling bs as well I was in the Marine Corps recently and they are still telling us that theyre was a navy man who got sunburnt and was charged for destruction of goverment property. You cant beleive everything the goverment tells you. If this did happen during WWII that was then and we are living in the now. You still have rights when you enter the military more so today than ever. Who woulda ever thought that the Marines would hand out stress cards in boot camp now a days. I wouldnt have when I was in but they are doing it.

Ok, here and now:

If, as a civilian, I tell my CEO to go F-himself I look for a new job; If, as a Marine, I tell a general to go F-himself I go to the brig. There's that freedom of speech thingy.

If, as a civilian, my boss tells me that I can't associate with someone because they are an executive, I risk my job if I get caught; If, as a Marine, my "superior" tells me that I can't associate with someone, (I'm an officer and she's enlisted for example), then I go to the brig. There's that freedom of assembly thingy.

And that's just the First Amendment!

 

[Shorts]

Article 125 should already have most married couples and consenting singles in Leavenworth by now, right?



I agree there are thing that must be regulated in order to support the Chain of Command. There are others however that are none of the Command's concern.

 

[SWJewellTN]

Article 125 should already have most married couples and consenting singles in Leavenworth by now, right?

Is not sodomy illegal in most jurisdictions, and, (to your point), isn't that a matter of enforcement? Is sodomy a constitutional right? Constitutional right are what we're, (well, I am anyways), talking about, correct?

 

[Shorts]

Is not sodomy illegal in most jurisdictions, and, (to your point), isn't that a matter of enforcement? Is sodomy a constitutional right? Constitutional right are what we're, (well, I am anyways), talking about, correct?

I'm asking you if it is illegal then why isn't it enforced? Why aren't all offenders in jail already? You made the comment asking if they had internet in the brig which means one will be taken to charge for the offense. Why then have married couples and consenting adults not been taken to charge for their offenses?


Well...

Lawrence v. Texas
http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/lawrence/lawrence.htm

"All sodomy laws in the US are now unconstitutional and unenforceable when applied to non-commercial consenting adults in private."


Now does that apply to the military as well?



Back to the Command demanding registration of firearms of those living off base, I suppose that'd be a matter of enforcement. How will they enforce it? And how did the military intend to enforce the sodomy laws?

And if they do pass this registration, will it stick? There have been pushes to get Article 125 pulled from the books for good. I'd imagine any registration laws would face the same scrutiny.

 

[SWJewellTN]

I'm asking you if it is illegal then why isn't it enforced? Why aren't all offenders in jail already? You made the comment asking if they had internet in the brig which means one will be taken to charge for the offense. Why then have married couples and consenting adults not been taken to charge for their offenses?


Well...

Lawrence v. Texas
[URL]http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/lawrence/lawrence.htm[/URL]

"All sodomy laws in the US are now unconstitutional and unenforceable when applied to non-commercial consenting adults in private."


Now does that apply to the military as well?



Back to the Command demanding registration of firearms of those living off base, I suppose that'd be a matter of enforcement. How will they enforce it? And how did the military intend to enforce the sodomy laws?

Oh, brother! Let's review:

1. You say they are violating your rights to have you register your weapons on base when they are not stored on base. I agree, but I point out that you sign away your, (Constitutional), rights when you enlist: therefore, you only have the rights that they see fit to give you, (in the UCMJ). In other words, good luck with going to the JAG with that.

2. You and others dispute that you give away said rights when you enlist. So I point out clear differences between a civilian's rights and the military's rights.

3. The you come back with a sodomy argument that has nothing to do with the difference between Constitutional rights afforded to a civilian or military.

What is so hard to understand that the military is under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and civilians are not?

 

[Shorts]

Sodomy has been contested in the UCMJ, twice.

Panel urges ending UCMJ?s sodomy ban | Stars and Stripes

Sodomy is not uniformly enforced in the military. I still ask you, how did the military intend to enforce Article 125?

In light of how Article 125 is utilized, how does the military expect to enforce a registration law?




See, no "civilian" word to muck up the point.

 

[SWJewellTN]

Sodomy has been contested in the UCMJ, twice.

Panel urges ending UCMJ?s sodomy ban | Stars and Stripes

Sodomy is not uniformly enforced in the military. I still ask you, how did the military intend to enforce Article 125?

In light of how Article 125 is utilized, how does the military expect to enforce a registration law?




See, no "civilian" word to muck up the point.

What does this have to do with any of my points? I couldn't care less whether or not sodomy is enforced uniformly within the service. In fact, I couldn't care less if they enforce it uniformly within the squad.

I couldn't care less how command expects to enforce this gun registration "law" at all. I don't think they can without tying-in civilian reporting with military personnel, which would probably be objected to by the NRA in a heartbeat.

I think - and I have posted as such - that the military personnel have more of a right, and a reason, to carry handguns than civilians do by virtue of their training and the fact that they are targets as recently evidenced in Texas and Arkansas.

 

[Shorts]

Honestly, you lost me. I don't know what position you're taking as you're all over the place.

First you state that military sign over their life and should expect no regard for personal constitutional liberties afforded to civilians. Then you proceed to make a point there is a difference in civilian and military law and military should not expect certain freedoms. Now your reply immediately above... I have no clue what position you take.

I *thought* you were defending the right of a command to enforce this registration. You even commented about the brig. Now you're supporting "more of a right to carry" which is absolutely off the scale of what this discussion was about (should a command register off base firearms).



You lost me. You're not making sense.


If anyone outside this thread can shed some light on what I am missing, please fill me in.

 

[majormadmax]

DH was a LegalO. He very often told the CO what he thought of his decisions

That's funny, I was a commander and as best as I remember, I was the one with UCMJ authority, not the JAG!

As previously stated, this is just enforcing DoD regulations. It is nothing new. About the only thing different is requiring soldiers who live offbase to register their weapons on base. I have not heard of that before but it could either be new and well within the commander's rights, or it was confusion on the part of the media and the only people required to register their weapons on base are the ones that bring them on.

The sunburn/destruction of government property tale is an old war story. In other words, it's BS! If it were true, the same charges would apply for someone who breaks their leg playing football or some other activity. Also, under the same vein, getting a tattoo would be "defacing government property." It just isn't so. I think it is just something NCOs use to scare the lower enlisted.

Contrary to popular belief, soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines are not government property, but intentionally causing self-injury could fall under Malingering (Article 115, UCMJ -“Any person subject to this chapter who for the purpose of avoiding work, duty, or service”—(1) feigns illness, physical disablement, mental lapse or derangement; or (2) intentionally inflicts self-injury; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct). But notice the key difference is intentional, accidents do not fall under this article.

And it is not the same as being drunk on duty. Article 112 [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]addresses that (“Any person subject to this chapter other than sentinel or look-out, who is found drunk on duty, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct”) and many people confuse it with being available for duty. Individuals[/FONT] are not expected to be sober 24/7, but when they are expected to be on duty they have the obligation to not be under the influence of alcohol. In my experience, most of the time this occurred was not someone coming straight to work after drinking, but when someone drank so much that many hours later (and often after several hours of sleep) they came to work but were still under the effects of alcohol.

Finally, I know several Muslims who proudly serve in the US military and have done so with distinction. Hassan had issues that appear to have overwhelm his rational judgment, but don't lump all Muslims as being radicals whose only intent in life is to kill Christians and Jews. To stereotype them all as being the same is exactly what the extremists are trying to get them to believe. We are better than that, and should show it!

Cheers! M2

 

[Shorts]

That's funny, I was a commander and as best as I remember, I was the one with UCMJ authority, not the JAG!

As previously stated, this is just enforcing DoD regulations. It is nothing new. About the only thing different is requiring soldiers who live offbase to register their weapons on base. I have not heard of that before but it could either be new and well within the commander's rights, or it was confusion on the part of the media and the only people required to register their weapons on base are the ones that bring them on.

The sunburn/destruction of government property tale is an old war story. In other words, it's BS! If it were true, the same charges would apply for someone who breaks their leg playing football or some other activity. Also, under the same vein, getting a tattoo would be "defacing government property." It just isn't so. I think it is just something NCOs use to scare the lower enlisted.

Contrary to popular belief, soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines are not government property, but intentionally causing self-injury could fall under Malingering (Article 115, UCMJ -“Any person subject to this chapter who for the purpose of avoiding work, duty, or service”—(1) feigns illness, physical disablement, mental lapse or derangement; or (2) intentionally inflicts self-injury; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct). But notice the key difference is intentional, accidents do not fall under this article.

Finally, I know several Muslims who proudly serve in the US military and have done so with distinction. Hassan had issues that appear to have overwhelm his rational judgment, but don't lump all Muslims as being radicals whose only intent in life is to kill Christians and Jews. To stereotype them all as being the same is exactly what the extremists are trying to get them to believe. We are better than that, and should show it!

Cheers! M2

Great to have word from the horses mouth


In regard to my comment of the LegalO telling the CO what he thought of his decisions, including that wink at the end, tht meant that LegalO made sure what the CO wanted to do fit into the 'doable' guidelines

 

[SWJewellTN]

First, let me state that only 7% of human communication is in the words that we use. The rest of it is in body language voice inflections: therefore, miscommunication in a forum is probable, and that is why I prefer to discuss important matters in person. But that's simply not possible.

What I say is that when you voluntarily place yourself under the UCMJ the rights that you enjoy are whatever rights the military gives you. For the most part, those rights align themselves with Constitutional protections concerning criminal prosecution. You have the right to a trial of your peers. You have the right not to incriminate yourself. You have the right to representation. Those kind of things. You have the right to vote as well.

But you do not enjoy the same full set of rights a civilian enjoys because of needs of the service. Your rights to your very body are not the same as mine. I can speak my mind without fear of imprisonment whereas I couldn't when I was a Marine. I can associate with whomever I choose whereas I couldn't when I was a Marine. I didn't even get a damned choice as to whether I had my wisdom teeth removed or not. I was ordered to do so even though they were causing me no problems. I didn't have the freedom to turn down a flu shot every year.

The military can indeed require military personnel to register their weapons on base regardless of whether or not they are stored on base because you gave them the right to dictate this to you when you enlisted. I don't think it's fair, nor do I think it's right, but it doesn't matter.

Do I think that they can enforce it? No!

 

[majormadmax]

Whereas most of the JAGs I worked with were great (I had several jobs besides command that required interaction with them), I did run into a few who felt they were the ones with command authority. I actually went against their recommendations on several cases (mostly Article 15s), simply because I know their criteria for pursing charges against someone was different than mine. I also got to hear what they thought of my decisions, but when it came down to it I was the one making the decision and who would answer for it. I had a few IG investigations launched against me, but I survived them all so I guess I did alright!

But I understand your point, I have seen commanders that were a bit overzealous in their pursuit of justice. I sat on a court martial where the commander wanted much heavier penalties levied than were justified. The case was open and shut, but the punishment we dealt was less than what he wanted. The regulations were very clear on what we could impose...I guess he hoped we wouldn't read them!

Oh, and I appreciate your comment on my remarks being from that end of the horse, and not the other!

 

[RetArmySgt]

It is policy of every Army post that any firearms that are brought on post must be registered with the Provost Marshalls office and any personnel that live in the barracks must lock their firearms in the unit arms room and have to schedule a time with their chain of command to have the armorer present to withdraw the weapons for a trip to the range or go hunting and must be return to the arms room by a certain time. That policy has been in effect long before the shooing at fort hood. thats one reason i refused to live on post when i was in.

EDIT: if you live off post or store your weapons off post the only time you have to register is if you bring them on post to use the POW (Personally Owned Weapons) range

 

[RetArmySgt]

Originally Posted by SWJewellTN

The point is that you are granted that right, which is why you can go to the JAG: however, any of those rights can be suspended.

Example that relates to the Navy: A sailor who got sunburned too bad to perform his duties was court-martialed for "Destruction of Military Property" which means his body was considered the property of the military.

Do you have freedom of speech? Nope. Go tell your CO what you REALLY think of one of his/her decisions and see if you do. Think you have freedom of assembly? Nope. They can give you a lawful order to stay away from someone.

You sign your rights away when you enlist, and they give you the rights that they think are appropriate.
​

Unless you have somebody that you know personally that this has happened to, I call BS... 11 years on Active Duty and counting, this is nothing more than a sea story.... As for suspending your rights, again BS, you just have different channels you must go through. I am getting tired of the twisting of the truth in regards to what it means to serve in regards to "suspending your rights"...



I was on active duty and went out to VA beach while stationed at Ft Eustis i fell asleep on the beach after getting wasted. I was sunburned to the point that i could not where my BDU's and was givin an Art 15 for damage to government property. I have seen several other soldiers givin Art 15's for the same reason.

 

[DirtyD]

I was on active duty and went out to VA beach while stationed at Ft Eustis i fell asleep on the beach after getting wasted. I was sunburned to the point that i could not where my BDU's and was givin an Art 15 for damage to government property. I have seen several other soldiers givin Art 15's for the same reason.

And so I stand corrected, in 8 years in SoCal, numerous Marines sunburned, never seen it. But here it is, so I will humbly sit in the corner and eat my crow pie.....

 

[DCortez]

I was on active duty and went out to VA beach while stationed at Ft Eustis i fell asleep on the beach after getting wasted. I was sunburned to the point that i could not where my BDU's and was givin an Art 15 for damage to government property. I have seen several other soldiers givin Art 15's for the same reason.

When I was stationed in Hawaii, I was warned not to get sunburned to the point of not being able to dress or don equipment.