Sniper & Sharpshooter Forums banner

21 - 40 of 69 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,795 Posts
Cal you sell your firearms to a trused friend or family member? Make them a very very good deal and perhaps you can buy them back someday.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
564 Posts
Request Captain's Mast (or non-navy equivalent) and if that does not get the issue resolved, file a formal grievance.

Get a lawyer.

Since you already turned them in, this is moot, but if you lived off base, I would refuse to comply with that order, challenging it as an unlawful direct order. If they really feel they have the legal authority and jurisdiction, then they should have no problem going to local law enforcement to obtain proper warrants, by the proper jurisdictional authorities, to obtain entry to your premises and seize your firearms (I really doubt a judge would sign that warrant).

But since they are already turned in, I would start legal action immediately. Do not believe anyone who tells you that you cannot sue the government, or the chain of command. That's like believing everything your recruiter tells you. They are misinformed. Get the legal ball rolling ASAP.

Get those weapons into the hands of friends or family. Just because some misguided college grad with some brass on his collar now, thinks you are a risk, does not give him the right to take your non-issued weapons. I would get a court order, ordering the post to relinquish the firearms into family custody, but again, get a lawyer for that.

Contact your Senator or Representative.

Get independent medical verification. You will have to pay for this yourself most likely, but it's cheaper than losing your guns.

Just because you defend the Constitution, does not mean it does not apply to you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
Man I am terribly sorry to read all of this!

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

You may have some luck contacting Mike R. and bouncing ideas off of his head to see if he can recommend anyone to legally represent you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
ptsd

greetings brothers and sisters, i'm a member of the oathkeepers i'm the dfw regional military committee chairman for our regional, in reading of your issues with your command it is troubling to see our brothers and sisters subject to this, i wish i could help you with your issues and advise we as military are subject to different laws then regular civilians, in the readings i understand that you will see the jag, i think that is good advise i'm sorry that you have to go thru such a ordeal, i was medically boarded out in 2004, i had 18 years of active duty and 5 years with the texas guard/reserves then transfered to the army retired reserves. if you need any help or need to talk to anyone i'll send you my email address, thank you for your service to this country. with all dues respect donald
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,935 Posts
Lot's of advice on here, and a lot of it is WRONG.

Even though you live off post, your chain of command still has authority over your residence and possessions. They also have the authority to make you move back on post if they see fit to. These are FACTS, and anyone who tells you different is wrong.

You are in the U.S. Army, and you gave up your right to unreasonable search and seizure, and quite a few other things, when you signed your name on the dotted line. And "guilty until proven innocent" has always been commonplace in the Army, as has "guilty by association" Perception is everything. It may not be right, but it is what it is...

If you have any desire to stay in the Army, you need to be very careful about how you speak to your chain of command on this incident, and especially about going over people's heads. And be wary about hiring a civilian lawyer, as that is usually not in a soldier’s best interest…

Your 2nd Amendment rights have not been violated, because, bottom line, you have been diagnosed with PTSD which is a MENTAL ILLNESS. That also means you will never be able to buy a gun again, unless you can get this cleared off your record, which might take years or decades if it is even possible…

I’m not trying to be discouraging, and I wish you the best in resolving this, just trying to give you a bit of a reality check.

In hindsight, I, personally, would have never registered a weapon on-post if I lived off-post and was not bringing it on-post. And I most certainly would have “soldâ€
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
518 Posts
Discussion Starter #26
lonewolf said:
In hindsight, I, personally, would have never registered a weapon on-post if I lived off-post and was not bringing it on-post. And I most certainly would have “soldâ€
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,935 Posts
Psycho-82 said:
I didnt have much of a choice as this is the very reason i was stripped of my stripes a little over a year ago!
Explain, please



Alot of what the Army does is wrong yet people still go with it. How will things ever change for the better if everyone else goes along with it?
I didn't make the rules, brother. If it is worth your military career to you to buck the system, then by all means go for it.

Military has authority over myself... not my residence nor my posessions.
Unfortunately, you just found out the hard way that they do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,571 Posts
Here's something for everyone to think about, it's called a living trust. If Psycho-82 had one this could not have happened. Also, for everyone else out there go and get one. Here's why, for example you are going through a divorce lawyers will file restraining order against you to protect his client. This gets you a visit from the local sheriff to confiscate your weapons until things are sorted out. Heck you don't have to go through a divorce either. Another example you go out to get the morning paper and your crazy neighbor calls your wife something bad so, you go over to him and say something bad too. Well now he feels threaten so, he goes and gets a lawyer to file a restraining order. You guessed it here comes the local sheriff for your weapons until everything is sorted out.

With a living trust these weapon are not yours. You can be authorized to used the weapons because you are in charge of the trust. Also, it's a great way to pass them along to you children when you pass. Before you pass you make them in charge of the trust. No taxes, read my lips no taxes. That's right no taxes on the weapons because the trust owns them. This only matters if you have more than 1 million dollars in assets to pass on to you children.

Just something to think about.

Jamie

P.S. - There's not a whole lot that can be do when big green bends you over and doesn't use any lube. Don't expect to get a reach a round either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
576 Posts
Psycho82 said:
You claim i gave up my right to unreasonable search and seizure... if so then show me where i did such a thing, give me an extract to the reg that says this! Each time i say this no one can... please id love to see it if it exists!
Sounds like you might want to discuss this with JAG. One of the reasons I haven't joined the CF is because of how many rights I'd be signing away at my commanding officer's discretion. I doubt it's much different in the States.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
Physco82, i feel bad for you. I cant believe they should treat anyone like that, especially a person who has served to protect their country. I feel like just walking away from owning rifles myself, im sick of being treated like a criminal for doing the right thing.

I wish you the best and pray that you get your gear back. Goodluck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts
A couple of things here...

With a living trust these weapon are not yours. You can be authorized to used the weapons because you are in charge of the trust.
This is just WRONG! If you have a restraining order, or any other thing that makes it illegeal for you to own or purchase a firearm, then they cannot even be in your residence, nor can they be in your hand (contructive possession). You cannot even have in your possession, nor within your residence, ammunition for them. Holding one, having one in your home, or having ammo for one is a federal offense, punishable by 5 years in federal prison with an 80% minimum to serve. The only way a trust helps, is you as the trustee get to say what happens to them, but you cannot possess or use them.

As for the militarty having the right to search your residence, even off base. The answer for this came in another place I posted this story. I don't have the exact reg, but to paraphrase it, if you draw BAQ, BOQ, VHA or any other housing allowance of any kind, the residence it is being used for is considered an extension of the military post to which you are assigned. Also your command or it's representative has the authority to do a warrantless welfare check of your residence, to ensure you are living in a clean and safe enviornment appropriate for your health and well being. And, you are considered government property, and they have the "right" to protect that property by "whatever means necessary."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,571 Posts
docv_73 said:
A couple of things here...

With a living trust these weapon are not yours. You can be authorized to used the weapons because you are in charge of the trust.
This is just WRONG! If you have a restraining order, or any other thing that makes it illegeal for you to own or purchase a firearm, then they cannot even be in your residence, nor can they be in your hand (contructive possession). You cannot even have in your possession, nor within your residence, ammunition for them. Holding one, having one in your home, or having ammo for one is a federal offense, punishable by 5 years in federal prison with an 80% minimum to serve. The only way a trust helps, is you as the trustee get to say what happens to them, but you cannot possess or use them."
Could you point me in the right direction to look this information up. I am very curious because I was told it would protect your weapons from seizure. Also, I looked up constructive possession and came up with this:

Constructive possession is a legal theory used to extend possession to situations where a person has no hands-on custody of an object. Most courts say that constructive possession, also sometimes called "possession in law," exists where a person has knowledge of an object plus the ability to control the object, even if the person has no physical contact with it (United States

v. Derose, 74 F.3d 1177 [11th Cir. 1996]). For example, people often keep important papers and other valuable items in a bank safety deposit box. Although they do not have actual physical custody of these items, they do have knowledge of the items and the ability to exercise control over them. Thus, under the doctrine of constructive possession, they are still considered in possession of the contents of their safety deposit box. Constructive possession is frequently used in cases involving criminal possession.

So, what I get out of that any weapon that you own (not the trust) and have store some place where you are not physically holding it, but could get access to; could be confiscated.

Thanks in advance for any information.

Jamie

P.S. - I am not having any legal problems. I do have two suppressors that I ordered, so this is why I have been looking for information on living trust.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
518 Posts
Discussion Starter #33
lonewolf said:
Psycho-82 said:
I didnt have much of a choice as this is the very reason i was stripped of my stripes a little over a year ago!
Explain, please
This is what i was talking about:

*removed*

The continuation i left out as it was dealing with a civilian matter which had not gone to court yet and so they couldnt find me guilty. The civilian case was dismissed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,809 Posts
Chris,

I dont know what to say but I hope it works out for you mate. It seems like the military over there gets treated very differently then a civilian even though you guys are they ones who defend the nation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts
This was posted on oathkeepers.net regarding this topic...


HR 2640 NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...40&tab=related

Sponsor:
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY4]
Cosponsors:
Donna Christensen [D-VI]
Timothy Bishop [D-NY1]
Frederick Boucher [D-VA9]
Lois Capps [D-CA23]
Michael Castle [R-DE]
John Dingell [D-MI15]
Rahm Emanuel [D-IL5]
Nita Lowey [D-NY18]
Dennis Moore [D-KS3]
James Moran [D-VA8]
William Pascrell [D-NJ8]
Mike Ross [D-AR4]
Janice Schakowsky [D-IL9]
Christopher Shays [R-CT4]
Brad Sherman [D-CA27]
Lamar Smith [R-TX21]
Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL20]


Text:
Summary
Full Text

Status:
Introduced Jun 11, 2007
Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
Amendments (1 proposed)View Amendments
Passed House Jun 13, 2007
Passed Senate Dec 19, 2007
Signed by President Jan 8, 2008
This bill became law. It was signed by George Bush.
Last Action:
Jan 8, 2008: Became Public Law No: 110-180.

Jun 13, 2007:
This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote.
A record of each representative’s position was not kept. (Ron Paul vehemently voted against this bill)

Dec 19, 2007:
This bill passed in the Senate with changes by Unanimous Consent.
A record of each senator’s position was not kept.

Sources of Influence
MAPLight.org reports that the following organizations have taken a stance on this bill:

Support
National Rifle Association (????????????????????????)

Oppose
Gun Owners of America
John Birch Society



Section 105 -
Requires states, as a condition of grant eligibility, to establish procedures to allow persons with disabilities relating to mental health status or commitment to obtain relief from such disabilities for purposes of firearms eligibility. Requires states to allow de novo review in state courts of denials of relief.

SEC. 105. RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES PROGRAM REQUIRED AS CONDITION FOR PARTICIPATION IN GRANT PROGRAMS.

(a) Program Described- A relief from disabilities program is implemented by a State in accordance with this section if the program--

(1) permits a person who, pursuant to State law, has been adjudicated as described in subsection (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or has been committed to a mental institution, to apply to the State for relief from the disabilities imposed by subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of such section by reason of the adjudication or commitment;


(2) provides that a State court, board, commission, or other lawful authority shall grant the relief, pursuant to State law and in accordance with the principles of due process, if the circumstances regarding the disabilities referred to in paragraph (1), and the person's record and reputation, are such that the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest; and


(3) permits a person whose application for the relief is denied to file a petition with the State court of appropriate jurisdiction for a de novo judicial review of the denial.



(b) Authority To Provide Relief From Certain Disabilities With Respect to Firearms- If, under a State relief from disabilities program implemented in accordance with this section, an application for relief referred to in subsection (a)(1) of this section is granted with respect to an adjudication or a commitment to a mental institution or based upon a removal of a record under section 102(c)(1)(B), the adjudication or commitment, as the case may be, is deemed not to have occurred for purposes of subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code.


section 922 of title 18, United States Code

(g)(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html

------

This attorney may have knowledge of how to help your friend:

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/23787

Letter of public record: WALTER A. MURRAY, JR.
Attorney at law
July 25, 2007

Senator John Barrasso
RE: HR 2640

Dear Senator Barrasso:

It is troublesome that I feel compelled to write this letter. Troublesome
because HR 2640, as I read it, will deny thousands of American combat
veterans the right to possess, own and carry a firearm. This bill strips
Americas finest of their rights under the Second Amendment of the United
States Constitution, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.


While at the Veterans Hospital at Ft. Meade a few weeks ago, I was
approached by five Vietnam Veterans who were waiting for their group session to start(PTSD). One of the Veterans knew I was an attorney and had been a judge in Wyoming. The question put to me was would they lose their Second Amendment Rights under HR 2640. It was lucky that I had read portions of this bill so I could give them a tentative answer. That answer was "You probably will loose your rights under the Second Amendment". Four of the five men had concealed weapons permits, three from South Dakota and one from Wyoming. The fifth gentlemen was an avid hunter and owned rifles. Concealed weapons permits issued by the State of Wyoming are done after an exhaustive Federal, State, and local records and back ground checks. I have been told that South Dakota goes through the same back ground checks as Wyoming.


I could go through HR 2640 in this letter in great detail, but I know you
have or will screen this bill with a fine tooth comb, so I will direct the
remainder of this letter to my 38 years dealing with people suffering from
PTSD and those not. As you know I have been a private attorney, part time court commissioner and part time Juvenile Court Referee in California. In Wyoming I have been a private attorney, a prosecutor, a County Court Judge, and a Senior Assistant Public Defender.


I have testified in court on the issue of a persons mental state. Due to the nature of my profession I have read much on dysfunctional psychology as well as observing this issue first hand. It has been my experience that those suffering from PTSD are no more likely to do harm to themselves or to others than a "normal" person. In fact, those suffering from PTSD and have sought help are less likely to do harm to themselves or others than "normal" folks.


This bill is a double blow to those with PTSD. The 83,000 veterans diagnosed with PTSD, never given due process, had their names added to the Brady Instant Check Data Base to prevent these veterans from buying guns. HR 2640 will by law prevent this class of people from buying, owning or possessing guns. More names of veterans will be added to this list with the billion dollars called for in the bill.


I would request that you consider the harm this bill will do to law abiding
citizens who have served their country and now suffer from PTSD. A no vote seems to be the only vote appropriate for this bill.


If you have any questions do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Walter A. Murray, Jr.
Attorney At Law
January 8, 2008
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts
Could you point me in the right direction to look this information up. I am very curious because I was told it would protect your weapons from seizure. Also, I looked up constructive possession and came up with this:
Here is an easy link for the basics, which has aditional links to the BATF websites


http://www.nraila.org/gunlaws/federal/read.aspx?id=60

I am looking for my laminated cheatsheets the feds give us every couple years when they come in for refresher training. It has the code sections on it, which I will post when/if I find it.

As for constructive possession, I put that in the wrong spot - need to proof read! That should read, "cannot be in your residence (costructive possession) nor in your hand (actual possession). Examples used for convictions are everyone in a car that has first hand actual knowledge of an item, and have immediate access to the item, are all in constructive possession, a felon that handled a firearm once, and left his prints on it can be convicted of actual possession, just by being able to prove he had it in his hands. Sorry for the confusion.

Even a olice officer that is married to, or a parent of a person under restriction from owning a firearm, is required to leave their duty weapon at work, because it cannot be in the residence with the restricted person.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,935 Posts
Psycho,
Go ahead and pull that pic off and we'll take this to pm.

Too much personal info for the open web.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,571 Posts
@ docv_73

I haven't found anything that yet on the government being able to confiscate weapons from trust if the trustee has a restraining order against them. I have found out that a trust is a generic form of a corporation. Which, to me would mean the trust is it's own identity separate from the trustee.

Also, if you have your weapons in a trust and you go through a divorce or are being sued for something, these weapon are can not be awarded to any one in a settlement because the trust is considered it's own identity. This is similar to how people incorporate to protect their assets.

Jamie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Psycho:

First off, from a career NCO, and unit armorer--many times over...

You need to accomplish this IMMEDIATELY...

1. Secure enough LOCKING hardcases for ALL of your POF.
2. Head to the Arms Room, and request a serial number inventory of ALL of your POF.
3. If you have handguns that can all fit in padded containers in a locking box, that's good. If not, before you go to the Arms Room, look up and find a place where you can get a quantity of railroad (metal, serial numbered) seals.
4. INVENTORY and closely inspect EACH of your firearms, with the Arms Room Officer and Armorer present. Then, place them in the locking containers and seal each with the railroad seal.

Why?

1. Armorers and Arms Rooms have a monthly serial number inspection, where each and every item in the arms room is verified physically. This is often an excuse for some armorers to fondle, play with, dry fire or drool all over your firearms.

2. Even the senior NCO's and officers in the unit are not proof from temptation. I personally saw a PPC revolver wrecked in an arms room I was taking over--where? Fort Bliss, TX.

3. However, even the most greasy fingered gun wreckers will NOT breach a railroad seal. The seal's serial number is noted on the monthly and quarterly inventories. However, the annual is a physical inspection, meaning that the seal might have to be broken. If they are stuck in the Arms Room, they might have to be handled--however, this is usually in your presence.

Now, on to your problem...

You have to make a decision. If you want to stay in then you must obey the orders of the officers and NCO's appointed over you.

This means that if you want your firearms out of reach, you may have to find secure storage OUT OF STATE.

Fortunately, for you this is not too hard--a good friend (REALLY trusted friend, that is) living in Ruidoso, or even Alamogordo might be sufficient.

You have to make that decision, however.

And, in closing, what is the single thing that makes Commanders cringe? Congressional investigations, instituted by your US Representatives.

I'm just sayin'..... :twisted:
 
21 - 40 of 69 Posts
Top