Sniper & Sharpshooter Forums banner

1 - 20 of 69 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
518 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So i got a call about 15 mins ago from my platoon sergeant saying i have to turn in all my firearms because im "high risk". The only reason im considered "high risk" is because ive been diagnosed with PTSD. All my weapons are registered with post (even though i dont agree with this regulation), im not considered by any medical professionals i see regarding the above issue to be a threat to myself or anyone else, im a CHL holder so the state sees me fit to carry. The higher command (BN lvl) has made a call that all high risk soldiers are to turn in their weapons without making any actual informed decisions based on medical evaluations from current providers. I dont know if this is really illegal... however i do find it immoral as i am now unable to defend myself, my family, nor my property... of which i had a motorcycle stolen from right out in front of my place in broad daylight! Whats are your thoughts on this... and advice?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,821 Posts
You gotta get a lawyer, preferably one who is familiar with gun law and the military. This isn't right but I don't know anything about military law so get an expert. You really gonna give up a Tac Ops?

Let's all take note where gun registration can go. It goes from register it to give it to me very quickly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
518 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
oneeyedmac said:
You gotta get a lawyer, preferably one who is familiar with gun law and the military. This isn't right but I don't know anything about military law so get an expert. You really gonna give up a Tac Ops?

Let's all take note where gun registration can go. It goes from register it to give it to me very quickly.
Do i want to give them up HELL NO! Did i give them up.... yes, as im looking at the board again and dont want to screw myself again in that area by "disobeying a lawful order".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts
OMFG!!!!!!!!!!

Is this a temp thing, that if medically cleared you can get them back? Can't you just give them to a family member to "get them away from you?"

This is rediculous!!!!! PTSD is not a dignosis for being homicidal, or suicidal, or anything else that automatically makes you a risk. It means nothing more than you have suffered emotional stress from a traumatic experience. It is not limited to combat nor military personel. There is no way this can be legal!

I know that IF YOU LIVE ON BASE the base has the option to deny you the permission to bring your guns onto a federal installation, but I do not believe they have the right to seize them without cause. Even a safekeeping seizure can only be done with cause - i.e. threats to commit suicide.

This is a prime example of why I am a member of oathkeepers.net and .org

I will only do this with your permission, but do mind if I forward this to oathkeepers.net - if nothing else, then to post it on their discussion boards as a warning - and I would also like to pass it on to my father for post on his website. He is a disable vet (a Nam vet, with physical disabilites AND disability for PTSD). He runs a Christian outreach program/website for vets. Started out for Nam vets, but is now for any and all combat vets and family.

He has been hounding me for years to get my evaluation for PTSD to get the disability rating, so I can have access to some of the vets benefits. I've been refusing for fear of what it would do to my job as a cop and right to keep my firearms. I've been told that attitude is conspiracy theory junk and a symptom of PTSD. Guess I was right to say no!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
518 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
docv_73 said:
OMFG!!!!!!!!!!

Is this a temp thing, that if medically cleared you can get them back? Can't you just give them to a family member to "get them away from you?"

This is rediculous!!!!! PTSD is not a dignosis for being homicidal, or suicidal, or anything else that automatically makes you a risk. It means nothing more than you have suffered emotional stress from a traumatic experience. It is not limited to combat nor military personel. There is no way this can be legal!

I know that IF YOU LIVE ON BASE the base has the option to deny you the permission to bring your guns onto a federal installation, but I do not believe they have the right to seize them without cause. Even a safekeeping seizure can only be done with cause - i.e. threats to commit suicide.

This is a prime example of why I am a member of oathkeepers.com

I will only do this with your permission, but do mind if I forward this to oathkeepers.com - if nothing else, then to post it on their discussion boards as a warning - and I would also like to pass it on to my father for post on his website. He is a disable vet (a Nam vet, with physical disabilites AND disability for PTSD). He runs a Christian outreach program/website for vets. Started out for Nam vets, but is now for any and all combat vets and family.

He has been hounding me for years to get my evaluation for PTSD to get the disability rating, so I can have access to some of the vets benefits. I've been refusing for fear of what it would do to my job as a cop and right to keep my firearms. I've been told that attitude is conspiracy theory junk and a symptom of PTSD. Guess I was right to say no!!!!!!!!!!!!
Im a member of Oathkeepers as well, just not that involved since there are not many people in the same location as i am. I had not considered putting it on Oathkeepers but i think it should be brought to everyones attention. Especially due to the fact that ive done everything legally according to post regulations (even though i reside in a civilian location off post!). Temporary depends on how much actual cause they have (which really is some piece of paper someone made up with some bogus point system that declares me "high risk" due to my diagnosis of PTSD. My doctors (Psychologist, Psychiatrist, and some others) have all determined me to be fit and NOT a threat to myself or others which would invalidate their claim... yet the commanders of these units still want to impose policy that is possibly and most likely illegal! Ill be going to IG, and JAG tomorrow as well as getting letters from all the docs i see backing me up so they have no room to stand on! Please feel free to post this and forward this on to anyone you wish, as well as on Oathkeepers, but please give me the link to it so i can follow it there as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts
Fair enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
576 Posts
Sounds like more chickenshit. The US Army and USMC seem to be having difficulty coping at the middle level (company, battalion, brigade) with the thought of troops returning from high-stress theatres.

I can't seem to find the article at the moment, but apparently some brigade commander had all his soldiers read "Who Moved My Cheese" and everybody deemed "at risk" (by whatever their criteria were) was shanghaied away to the loving attention of various headshrinks. The article quotes such magical leadership techniques as "knowing your soldiers" (day one basic since before Thermopylae...) and "frequently talking with them". That this could be considered as anything other than "no **** obvious" is outright terrifying. I can't imagine what the troops in that unit experienced, especially those "at risk", to be separated from the group and brought off like that, probably about the same time that your commander suggested you all read a childish self-help book.

What you're experiencing looks like another instance of that sort of retardation. It's like they're totally disconnected from the average Infantryman.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,795 Posts
Call the NRA and get some legal help.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
A very big plus 1 on what ekaphoto said, I think there is a bill right now working its way up in congress that will help you, but for right now the NRA may be able to help you with legal help to get your weapons back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
I read about this going on just a couple weeks ago ... I think it was in the NRA magazine.

+1 on the NRA for legal help!

Keep us posted!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Greetings Psycho-82:

On various visits to D.C I have heard situations such as yours discussed. And currently the NRA is spearheading an effort to see this "abuse of a good intention" properly addressed.

From the bureaucratic side, I have heard registrations and confiscations of firearms have occurred when servicemen voluntarily requested, (or otherwise were determined as medically necessary), psychological evaluations post deployment and then applied for and received PTSD benefits.

Simply put, their argument was why should a serviceman who has been diagnosed, treated and compensated for PTSD and whom may be at high risk of posing harm to himself or others be permitted to own a gun? I'm sure you can concede that in this politically correct era and with what happened at Ft. Hood, those in Washington have a reasonable assertion.

It was only based upon medical evaluations and courses of treatment that servicemen were placed on a "high risk" status. It has been suggested, from a legal standpoint, that once a medical evaluation has been conducted by qualified Government personnel, whereby the serviceman applied for and received benefits, the serviceman's future conduct is the direct, inherent and legal responsibility of the Federal Government. Such responsibility and authority henceforth then, based upon probable cause, medical recommendation, or potential contingent liability of the serviceman being a "Threat to him/herself or others", permits the right of the Federal Government to require registration of personal firearms and munitions, or the right to confiscate those personal firearms.

Furthermore, the diagnosis and public record of High Risk PTSD also qualifies as cause to deny purchase of firearms both at Federal and State level as required in Form 4473, Question 11-F.

However, many inside and outside the beltway are of the opinion, the diagnosis of High Risk PTSD is being short-circuited by bureaucratic or "arbitrary" determinations based upon the serviceman's place of deployment, participation in traumatic and/or high intensity conflicts, or by PTSD diagnosis of other personnel within the same unit. This has been suggested as profiling. Many servicemen, whom even after evaluation, were previously determined not at risk were re-classified, (based on association or arbitrary determination), as high risk.

As reported in the Military News, nearly a year ago, Nidal Hasan walked into the Fort Hood deployment processing center and killed or injured more than 40 of his fellow troops. As a result of this shooting, the DOD and many installations, including Fort Hood, conducted an assessment of their weapons policies. Fort Hood, for example, mandated the registration of any and all privately owned weapons transported or stored on Fort Hood.

Some installations like Forts Campbell and Bliss went so far as to require registration of weapons owned by troops who lived OFF post. Fort Riley imposed regulations that also required that weapons be registered that are owned by Soldiers’ family members residing anywhere in Kansas.

C. Military personnel will:
(1) Register all their privately-owned firearms and the firearms of their Family members that are stored in their residence or within the state of Kansas, with their unit commander.
FR Regulation 190-1, para 7c(1), dated 15 March 2010

As mentioned, this came to the attention of the NRA many months ago. The NRA-ILA responded thusly this May:

Sen. Inhofe Introduces Legislation To Protect Second Amendment
Rights Of Military And Dept. Of Defense Civilian Personnel


Friday, May 28, 2010

"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.""

S. 3388: Service Member Second Amendment Protection Act of 2010 as introduced.

* Official Summary: A bill to protect the rights under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of members of the Armed Forces and civilian employees of the Department of Defense by prohibiting the Department of Defense from requiring the registration of privately-owned firearms, ammunition, or other weapons not stored in facilities owned or operated by the Department of Defense, and by prohibiting the Department of Defense from infringing on the right of individuals to lawfully acquire, possess, own, carry, or otherwise use privately owned firearms, ammunition, or other weapons on property not owned or operated by the Department of Defense, as introduced.

The NRA followed up in the September 2010 edition of The American Rifleman citing the Amendment was adopted on May 27 in a voice vote by the Senate Armed Services Committee. The NRA is currently assisting in the legislative process and the Senate in the adoption of this bill as law.

Psycho, it is with my greatest empathy I share your plight. To see a serviceman whom has risked his life for God and Country, under oath to uphold and defend his nation's Constitution, that an imposition has arisen whereby your rights fought for, died for, and granted by the very same Constitution are subjugated.

One can only commend you for being compliant and upstanding with your superiors. This is a good first step to asserting your conduct and disposition as a honorable, responsible and loyal serviceman. On a minor note, using your present call-sign or internet screen name might not be helping matters much.

Obviously, there is a lot of red tape, redress, and possible recourse ahead of you. At least you are exercising the proper protocols to resolve this situation. Please continue to do so. I am well aware military channels, with unfair consequences, can become a victim of its own bureaucracy. But while mistakes are made, I believe in the long run justice in most cases is served for the better.

Without knowing the facts, your past record and cause for this imposition, the military may hold a bonafide reason to withhold or suspend your right to own and bear arms.

However, I would sincerely suggest, that should you feel an unnecessary prejudice without cause is infringing upon your constitutional rights, you may want to contact the Nation Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, (NRAILA.org.) They have undertaken and addressed similar cases and may be able to best advise you how to pursue an amicable resolution.

Best of luck.

HoJo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
Do you live on base or off base? This is critical as most bases fall into the category of Federal property. Some don't and some have cuncurrent jurisdictions. If you live on base and it's federal in the housing area, you're screwed. If you live off base, the command has not jurisdiction over your residence or posessions.

You need the asistance of an attorney right now. You also need to file an Inspector General complaint after following your chain of command. You are being deprived of your posessions, firearms, without any recourse, or plan for return. More than likely, this decision and implementation by your command was done without JA consultation.

Lastly, you need to use your chain of command. "Sir, I don't agree that this act is required or legal. I will continue up the chain until this is realized." I would be very hesitant to bring any firearms in, but I would be there going up the chain letting everyone know I'm going to keep at it until someone see's this for what it is.

On a few occasions, I had co-workers, subordnates, and friends who were... in a bad spot. I either put their guns in my safe for them or had them taken to someone elses for keeping till things smoothed out. This was after I, their friend and usually supervisor, talked to them and together we decided what was the right thing to do at the time.

This is pretty poor leadership.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
538 Posts
Don't screw with this yourself Psycho. Everyone's suggestion to get legal help are absolutely the thing to do. Whether a UMCJ or civilian issue the complexities are immense and the professional ramifications great. Esepcially when you consider this to be happening on a federal level.

With the things you're dealing with I sincerely wish you the best on this man. You don't need another headache.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
I either put their guns in my safe for them or had them taken to someone elses for keeping till things smoothed out. This was after I, their friend and usually supervisor, talked to them and together we decided what was the right thing to do at the time.
There are certainly times where one must help out a friend under severe stress like that -- with that friend's consent. This, however, is a case (and not unique) where the government, at rather high levels, has made this determination. If the soldier's wife or other close family who knew him well was concerned, I could see them asking the command structure to take such a step. But if I'm reading this right, this confiscation is being perpetrated without any such request by those who know this soldier.

Do you live on base or off base?
I think he told us he lives off. What I read in the NRA magazine says some commanders are requiring registration of the firearms of close family members to the soldier, if living in the same state as the base.

This is highly illegal, in my "not a lawyer, but can read the Constitution" opinion.

I'm sure you can concede that in this politically correct era and with what happened at Ft. Hood, those in Washington have a reasonable assertion.
Psycho-82 may or may not ... but HonestJohn I don't concede that. The Ft Hood murderer had not deployed. It wasn't PTSD. It was radicalization by his religious leaders.

Certain elements have already labeled returning veterans as "potential domestic terrorists" -- about as absurd a claim as could be made -- and this looks like one way they're trying to grab control.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
518 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Thanks for all your replies gents, however ive contacted the NRA about a previous matter regarding weapons registration requirements on post and they would not help... and as such i have lost faith in the NRA.

HonestJohn:

I have been diagnosed with PTSD however im not receiving any benefits for it. None of the docs i see have determined me to be a threat to myself or others and therefore have felt no such need to require my weapons be confiscated from me. What they did is basically a violation of my 2nd (obviously) and 4th Amendment rights (unreasonable search and seizure) as they have had no probable cause to take them.

Without knowing the facts, your past record and cause for this imposition, the military may hold a bonafide reason to withhold or suspend your right to own and bear arms.
This is where youre wrong as according to the regs of this post i am authorized in every facet to own and store my weapons in my residence as this same issue was brought up before with my previous chain of command (COC) and i was found to be compliant, however the new COC wants to say im guilty until i prove my innocence.

SA Friday:

Yes i do live off post and am authorized to store them in my residence. I was very hesitant on bringing my weapons in however if i didnt then it would just give the command more reason to persue taking them from me and not give them back.

On a few occasions, I had co-workers, subordnates, and friends who were... in a bad spot. I either put their guns in my safe for them or had them taken to someone elses for keeping till things smoothed out.
That above is not authorized according to Ft Bliss regs as you are not allowed to store your privately owned weapons at a third party location (friends house specifically).


Now on a seperate note ive spent the morning dealing with this issue (its still not resolved and my unit does have my friearms). I spoke with the battalion commander and while this was a blanket policy for the entire battalion it still does not sit right in any mind with me. The commander appears to care to atleast handle these on a case by case basis... however hes taking the mindset of "Youre guilty until you prove your innocence". Ive already gone to JAG but ofcourse like always when you need their advice they are never there (and will not be able to be seen until Sept 13). I then went to IG to see what could be done on that end and again their doors were locked and they had already called it a day at 1315L. As of right now im stuck until Tuesday when everyone comes back to work from this holiday weekend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts
Obviously my dad is no expert, but he has been counseling and ministering to PTSD vets since the late 80s. He is one himself, and is a gun owner and CCW holder. He did some digging for me, including listing a couple of pertitent Army regs about why the commander thinks this is justifiable, and even why he thinks doing so is covering HIS a$$.

I will save the long email, but paraphrase his advise...

You are better to cooperate and give them up, and then jump through hoops to get them back, because this is being done by a misunderstanding and/or overuse of a new proceedure. The good news being, it is not a reporting/reportable scenario at it's face, meaning having to do this does not put you on a list to not be able to buy firearms etc, nor make you have to answer questions differently on purchase forms. This is strictly a command level event based on a knee jerk reaction to Fort Hood and a small number of high ranking democrats belief that any combat vet is a potential terrorist.

Most PTSD vets (legit PTSD that is) have seen enough, and don't want to see any more. They are rarely a threat to anyone, and when they are, it is usually to themselves. The ones that become, and especially act out with violence, or potential to commit violence, almost always have other mental diagnosis or symptoms of undiagnosed mental issues not related to PTSD, and which are usually present long before the incident that resulted it PTSD. In which case PTSD may be classifiable as a trigger at worst, but certainly not a cause. Also, PTSD is a curable mental injury, not permanant mental disorder. The memories never go away, and the nightmares always return (unfortunately) but with proper care, treatment, and guidence, to understand what it is and why it is happening, the acceptance and the coping mechanisms make you a more healthy individaul, not a threat to public safety.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
Obviously my dad is no expert, but he has been counseling and ministering to PTSD vets since the late 80s.
Sounds like he's more expert than those who claim the label. And a really good guy. I'm not a vet ... but I'd like to meet him some time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,821 Posts
I just figured this whole thing out. Your CO found out you own a Tac Ops and needed to find a way to spend some quality time with it!
 
1 - 20 of 69 Posts
Top