Is this new program gun control for US troops?

[Elderberry]

American Military News by Justin Cooper   December 12, 2022

Tucked away in the military’s must-pass annual budget bill is a “pilot program” for U.S. troops to lock away their personal firearms on military installations – a move that could be seen as gun control for U.S. troops. The program involves a “safe storage” practice that President Joe Biden previously said should be legally required of every American in his broader push for gun control.

The program calls for safes and gun-locking devices to be provided to at least five installations “on a voluntary basis.” Service members participating in the program are to stow their personally-owned firearms away “when not in use.”

After six years, the Defense Secretary is required to report back to Congress on the program’s effect on suicide prevention, as well as the costs of carrying it out.

Details of the program are included on page 517 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2023. The House of Representatives approved the bill last week with the help of 176 Republicans, and the Senate is expected to vote on it this week, sending it to Biden’s desk.

More: https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/12/is-this-new-program-gun-control-for-us-troops/

[Smokin Joe]

The quintessential problem with universal "safe storage" is that it isn't, in the sense that when you need one, there isn't generally time to go dig it out of some lockbox or safe.

Biden can pound sand.

[aligncare]

Ready access is the key to protection, not locked storage.  When a pistol was called a sidearm, it signified it’s importance on the frontier as a constant companion, and visible reminder to people with bad intentions to look elsewhere. 

Locked away somewhere a gun merely gives the illusion of safety.

[sneakypete]

"NEW"???????

This was an established procedure when I joined the army as a teenager.

Who the hell knows how long it has been going on,but I strongly suspect something like 100 years.

When you live in a barracks you have no real privacy,and if you owned guns and DIDN'T keep them stored in the company arms room when you weren't using them,they would be stolen within days of your purchase.

Also,consider the FACT that you might be off somewhere on a training mission or a military school to learn an additional military trade. Where would YOU prefer to leave your privately-owned guns,locked away in the company arms room,or in you wall locker?

I remember some guys pawning their firearms before a deployment or temporary transfer to a school,and paying the Pawn Shop months of interest in advance to make sure their guns weren't stolen while they were gone. I don't know why they preferred this over leaving them in the company arms room for free,but their guns,their choice.

[EdinVA]

"NEW"???????

This was an established procedure when I joined the army as a teenager.

Who the hell knows how long it has been going on,but I strongly suspect something like 100 years.

When you live in a barracks you have no real privacy,and if you owned guns and DIDN'T keep them stored in the company arms room when you weren't using them,they would be stolen within days of your purchase.

Also,consider the FACT that you might be off somewhere on a training mission or a military school to learn an additional military trade. Where would YOU prefer to leave your privately-owned guns,locked away in the company arms room,or in you wall locker?

I remember some guys pawning their firearms before a deployment or temporary transfer to a school,and paying the Pawn Shop months of interest in advance to make sure their guns weren't stolen while they were gone. I don't know why they preferred this over leaving them in the company arms room for free,but their guns,their choice.

Yes, we were not allowed to have private firearms in the barracks either...

[SZonian]

"NEW"???????

This was an established procedure when I joined the army as a teenager.

Who the hell knows how long it has been going on,but I strongly suspect something like 100 years.

When you live in a barracks you have no real privacy,and if you owned guns and DIDN'T keep them stored in the company arms room when you weren't using them,they would be stolen within days of your purchase.

Also,consider the FACT that you might be off somewhere on a training mission or a military school to learn an additional military trade. Where would YOU prefer to leave your privately-owned guns,locked away in the company arms room,or in you wall locker?

I remember some guys pawning their firearms before a deployment or temporary transfer to a school,and paying the Pawn Shop months of interest in advance to make sure their guns weren't stolen while they were gone. I don't know why they preferred this over leaving them in the company arms room for free,but their guns,their choice.

The folks who were supposed to be storing the weapons were caught more often than not using those weapons for their own personal enjoyment.  I lost count of the number of times firearms were picked up to go shooting and found to be dirty, damaged and in some cases, simply missing.  Many of us chose to store ours with friends who lived off base due to this.

[rangerrebew]

https://studygrowknowblog.com/2014/07/14/do-you-know-about-pl87-297-arms-control-and-disarmament-act/

This law from the Kennedy presidency may explain this idea better than anything else.  It has been renewed by every congress since then.  It calls for the unilateral abolishment of arms ownership by civilians and the US military being run by the United Nitwits.

[sneakypete]

The folks who were supposed to be storing the weapons were caught more often than not using those weapons for their own personal enjoyment.  I lost count of the number of times firearms were picked up to go shooting and found to be dirty, damaged and in some cases, simply missing.  Many of us chose to store ours with friends who lived off base due to this.

@SZonian

I was lucky enough to be in SF,where this sort of thing didn't happen. The majority of us were career soldiers and NCO's. IF you car was vandalized in the parking lot or something turned up missing in your barracks or team room,it was always some puke from a support company that did it.

I honestly didn't realize how lucky I was until I was medievaced from VN on a permanent physical profile that kept me from making parachute jumps or deploying,and I was sent to a conventional unit to be a babysitter for the draftees. It is what caused me to take a discharge instead of the promotion they offered me if I would re-enlist. It was all I could do to make it through the last few months to my discharge.

Why ANYBODY would be willing to deal with a situation like that for a couple of decades,just to get a retirement check,is a freaking mystery to me.

I guess I need to clarify this a little. It seems like it was only the US Army that had these problems,and that was probably because for the most part it was only the US Army that had to deal with draftees. IIRC,at one point the USMC was drafting new Marines,but damn few got drafted because they could avoid it by just enlisting for the US Army. Back then,at the height of the VN war,it was hard to enlist in any military branch BUT the US Army because so many people were enlisting in the Navy,USCG,or USAF in order to avoid being drafted into the US Army and going to VN as an infantryman.

[sneakypete]

Yes, we were not allowed to have private firearms in the barracks either...

@EdinVA

This was true for SF troops at Bragg,also. Nobody would jump through their asses if they saw you walking into the barracks with a firearm because they would (rightly) assume you had checked it out of arms room to go to the range with,or just to clean it and then take it back to the arms room.

This,of course was not the case when you were deployed to train foreign troops or on some "special mission". In those cases you were armed with loaded weapons 24/7.

I have told guys that served in the regular army about walking into a SF arms room while deployed and telling the NCOIC something like "I need a case of fragmentation grenades.",and him saying "Sure thing. Will that be all you need?"

No paperwork,no nothing but my request.

This does NOT happen at Ft.Bragg or any other US Army base,though. You could do it,but you needed paperwork authorizing you to receive them. Not that anyone was afraid you were going to start tossing them into the barracks or selling them on the blackmarket,because if you couldn't be trusted you wouldn't be there,but you had to play that game for the regular army stateside. It was a matter of standard procedure,not trust.

Besides,who the HELL needs a case of grenades or an automatic weapon or ammo at a stateside army base UNLESS they have a training mission scheduled that would require them?

If you are NOT at a stateside army base you are not training,you are "doing",which is an entirely different thing.

[sneakypete]

https://studygrowknowblog.com/2014/07/14/do-you-know-about-pl87-297-arms-control-and-disarmament-act/

This law from the Kennedy presidency may explain this idea better than anything else.  It has been renewed by every congress since then.  It calls for the unilateral abolishment of arms ownership by civilians and the US military being run by the United Nitwits.

@rangerbrew

"We iz da wurld......

We iz da peep-pulls.......

[EdinVA]

@EdinVA

This was true for SF troops at Bragg,also. Nobody would jump through their asses if they saw you walking into the barracks with a firearm because they would (rightly) assume you had checked it out of arms room to go to the range with,or just to clean it and then take it back to the arms room.

This,of course was not the case when you were deployed to train foreign troops or on some "special mission". In those cases you were armed with loaded weapons 24/7.

I have told guys that served in the regular army about walking into a SF arms room while deployed and telling the NCOIC something like "I need a case of fragmentation grenades.",and him saying "Sure thing. Will that be all you need?"

No paperwork,no nothing buy my request.

This does NOT happen at Ft.Bragg or any other US Army base,though. You could do it,but you needed paperwork authorizing you to receive them. Not that anyone was afraid you were going to start tossing them into the barracks or selling them on the blackmarket,because if you couldn't be trusted you wouldn't be there,but you had to play that game for the regular army stateside. It was a matter of standard procedure,not trust.

Besides,who the HELL needs a case of grenades or an automatic weapon or ammo at a stateside army base UNLESS they have a training mission scheduled that would require them?

If you are NOT at a stateside army base you are not training,you are "doing",which is an entirely different thing.

@sneakypete
Now that you mention it... I don't remember any paperwork for conventional weapons either... "special" weapons were... well special and needed more paperwork and guys with guns.. 

[sneakypete]

Yes, we were not allowed to have private firearms in the barracks either...

@EdinVA

Technically, we weren't either. Almost all of that stuff was done in the team rooms,and what happened in the team rooms,stayed in the team rooms.

Nobody really made that big of a deal about it,though. If you can't trust mostly senior NCO's with Top Secret/Crypto/Code Word Clearance stuff,who CAN you trust? You might as well just pack your stuff up  and go back home.

[sneakypete]

The folks who were supposed to be storing the weapons were caught more often than not using those weapons for their own personal enjoyment.  I lost count of the number of times firearms were picked up to go shooting and found to be dirty, damaged and in some cases, simply missing.  Many of us chose to store ours with friends who lived off base due to this.

@SZonian

You must have been in the Regular Army. I honestly can't think of a single instance where that occurred in SF. Then again,you pretty much had to be a NCO or Officer with Secret or higher security clearance to even be accepted for training,unlike the conventional units,which were mostly populated by people who didn't even want to be there,and whose goal was to do the least amount of work every day.

Before any of you get insulted and try to start a flame war,PLEASE note that I wrote "MOSTLY populated by......"

There were obviously some people in conventional units that were just as dedicated to duty and doing the best job they could do everyday. My hat is off to those people. They were stronger than me because I just couldn't deal with it.

[SZonian]

@SZonian

You must have been in the Regular Army. I honestly can't think of a single instance where that occurred in SF. Then again,you pretty much had to be a NCO or Officer with Secret or higher security clearance to even be accepted for training,unlike the conventional units,which were mostly populated by people who didn't even want to be there,and whose goal was to do the least amount of work every day.

Before any of you get insulted and try to start a flame war,PLEASE note that I wrote "MOSTLY populated by......"

There were obviously some people in conventional units that were just as dedicated to duty and doing the best job they could do everyday. My hat is off to those people. They were stronger than me because I just couldn't deal with it.

@sneakypete  No offense taken, I was USAF and Security Forces types were generally those who scored quite low on ASVAB...read into that what you will, but I do know that as a shirt, their shirt was quite busy.  Those are the ones I'm referring to.