My brother is in the military and while deployed his son found one of his handguns (nightstand; wife didn't secure it) and carried it to school. It was found in his backpack after he had bragged to another student that he had it. The son is 13 and spent 1 month in juvenile detention and is awaiting trial. My brother told me that he was told, by police, he couldn't have firearms in his house anymore and if he did, it would be a felony. However, it didn't effect his military status or his ability to possess firearms; just can't have them in his home. I've tried to search for a Federal law concerning this and have come up empty. Has anyone heard of this? He lives in OK, do you think it is a State law? Thanks
It's probably coming from a military command. Commanders in Kansas are requiring that all dependents register weapons on base, even if they're 200 freakin' miles away! Oklahoma is not that far away. I don't see how how a civilian authority could do this, but the military can pretty much do anything to one of their own. Fine way to treat our service members!
I know the soldier pretty much has to keep his mouth shut in order to stay out of trouble. However, the wife could tell them to stick their order where the sun doesn't shine. She could point out that the last time she checked, she didn't forfeit her 2nd Amendment Rights to keep and bear arms, and that she'll be darned if the military comes into her home and seizes her property that she bought with her own money. And another thing, she won't be registering any of her property with any military base.
If she lives on base, then she has to register the firearms. If she doesn't then she is subject to possible prosecution, ejection from base, not allowed to come back on base for any reason, and the husband is subject to UCMJ action.
Or if this military family does NOT live on base, it could be an Oklahoma state law that might apply. (I doubt it--- Oklahoma is a pretty conservative gun-loving state the way I remember it). And maybe the cops or DFCS / social workers / Juvenile Justice people were just blowing smoke up someone's butt. Law enforcement and other government agents have been known to lie about the law to convince people to do what the officers want. And they have been known to truly be ignorant of the law and tell people incorrect information about it. It sounds like your brother ought to demand that the people telling him that he can't have a gun at home anymore cite some law or regulation or court case saying that. Then he needs to do some research on the law or pay somebody (like an Oklahoma-licensed attorney) to research the law for him.
The Ft. Riley commander has extended firearm registration to all dependents even if they live off post, and across the state. I'll find the link later today.
Here's the link on Ft. Riley, though some blogs have said it was reversed as an "unlawful order". I have not been able to find any retraction. http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Feder ... px?id=5859
When I was in the Army, many years ago, we were told we gave up most of our rights when we put on the uniform. Military rules are considerably different than civilian laws and can be enforced far more easily. Sounds to me your brother has little, or no, recourse. Too bad...
You don'y give up any of your rights. countrygun, I always loved the "even if you live off post" orders. Had I been subject to the order you stated above, I would have told them to shove off.
I have a copy at home of a form letter sent out by a Unit CO at Fort Gordon that told all his troops they had to register their weapons after the idot Maj at Sam Houston went nuts. (I will post it this weekend for all to see), He was fired from his command. The Military may want its troops to believe their rights end upon enlistment but in fact its just not true. The UCMJ may be a little stricter but rights are rights and unless you lose them for crimes commited you cannot be denied them! The Base CO may be able to have his base off limits to weapons...but NO CO can deny his troops or their family members off base weapons, not legaly anyway.
He lives OFF base and was told it was OK law, but I can't find anything in OK laws that supports this statement (of course, I'm not the best researcher, which is why I posted the question). He was told by local LEOs and his wife was told the same thing by the son's PO when they came to install the monitoring system for the kid's house arrest. Told them that the kid had to be moved out for 6 months before they would be able to legally have a firearm in the house.
The child is a dependent of the parents thus living with them, BUT the child is now a felon who used/possessed a firearm and CANNOT be around firearms again. The PO has the ability to make it so the parents can have the kid or the guns but not both in the same house. Rules of probation...every state has them and EVERY one will not allow a felon on probation in/near a firearm as part of the probation. It sucks for the parents but the kid did it or he wouldn't be on probation.
But then, what about the discussion in this thread? 2nd amendment protects housemates of convicted felons
A housemate in not a dependent child that used YOUR gun to commit a crime. The parents are actually lucky some overzealous prosecutor didn't charge them as well.
This makes more sense than anything...I know for a fact a certain gent here in GA who cannot have a weapon on his person as a bond condition.
+1 I agree with this. DFCS and cops are notorious for telling lies just so they can scare someone into doing or not doing something they do or do not want them to do. Your best defense is to know your rights. He should get an attorney in his state to answer that question for him.
Yes, because 5 months and 29 days after he's gone are too dangerous of a time to have firearms in the house. Have they seen the law in black and white that's being referred to?
I suspect even then some things are too far. The Post commander couldn't tell all Military staff AND dependents that they could not vote for example.