Military Commanders can now question personnel about private firearms ownership


It gives them the right to ask if they have "reasonable grounds to believe such member is at risk for suicide or causing harm to others.’’, and it's for commanders or medical personnel. It doesn't say the service member has to answer, nor does it give them any right to take such guns. Technically they already could ask if the service member lived in government owned quarters. The new rule only extends that right to ask service members who live off-post/off-base. Interestingly, it also doesn't specify what constitutes "reasonable grounds’’, so that could result in controversy should the topic be put into practice. Since this is obviously within the realm of a medical opinion, no military commander is going to want to risk sticking his neck out in such circumstances without incredibly overwhelming evidence on his side. He or she would very much rather have the medical community make such determinations. Doing otherwise would put him/her in an incredibly vulnerable place legally.
 
I'm glad I got out of the Air Force this past summer. People were retiring left and right, and others were refusing to renew their contracts, despite massive re-enlistment bonus offers. Even over a year ago, military personnel seemed to know that something was bad wrong, and they needed to get out and fast. A Master Sergeant days away from retirement told me "this isn't the same Air Force I joined thirty years ago. This place has serious problems".

I still fully support those who serve and am grateful for their sacrifice... But I chose not to go back for my own personal reasons. I wasn't going to drag my family through the mud.
 
I never associated with terrorist the president has, as such he is no better than them, any law they attempt to pass taking away gun ownership in anyway will be ignored as unlawful.
 
shinzman said:
A Master Sergeant days away from retirement told me "this isn't the same Air Force I joined thirty years ago. This place has serious problems".
Click to expand...

Can you please elaborate for me how a MSgt can serve 30 years when the High Year Tenure is 24 years? Or is it possible that you were ANG/AFR who tend to march to the beat of their own drummer? Or is it possible that same MSgt was suffering from delusions of grandeur? Currently, the HYT for CMSgt is 30, SMSgt is 26, and MSgt is 24.

I will also submit that it was "time" for that MSgt to go...if he was telling what I assume was (you) a SrA that it was time to go, he would be what I consider a disgrace to his uniform and a piss-poor example of a Senior NCO.
 
nosreme said:
It's in the 2013 NDAA, thanks to a well-synchronized campaign linking commanders' and physicians' lack of knowledge about private firearms ownership to the increasing suicide rate. Of course, the bigger problem is that the military will inevitably stretch the ability to question into registration, training, and safety education requirements. And private ownership will be broad enough to cover "owned or possessed by anyone in the household," so transferring ownership to a spouse won't be a way of avoiding culpability. I'm so glad I retired. There's nothing more intrusive than a military with a declining mission.
Click to expand...

...early 1971 I was deployed & stationed on Guam. I was there for 3 weeks short of 6 years. I assure you, there were very definite questions/regulations when reporting on board the station as to any weaponry whatsoever that anyone had. None were actually restricted, but the CO XO and Head of SSO Security kept tabs on EVeRY firearm/ammo count... or any other deadly weapons. If any were obtained while stationed there, they had to be checked onto the base and into (and/or out of) your possession...

The idea that this is something new seems a bit off considering it was already commonplace some 40+ years ago...
 
Kenai said:
Can you please elaborate for me how a MSgt can serve 30 years when the High Year Tenure is 24 years? Or is it possible that you were ANG/AFR who tend to march to the beat of their own drummer? Or is it possible that same MSgt was suffering from delusions of grandeur? Currently, the HYT for CMSgt is 30, SMSgt is 26, and MSgt is 24.

I will also submit that it was "time" for that MSgt to go...if he was telling what I assume was (you) a SrA that it was time to go, he would be what I consider a disgrace to his uniform and a piss-poor example of a Senior NCO.
Click to expand...


I was ANG... which is under Federal control now.... which is Bull.
 
Kenai said:
Can you please elaborate for me how a MSgt can serve 30 years when the High Year Tenure is 24 years? Or is it possible that you were ANG/AFR who tend to march to the beat of their own drummer? Or is it possible that same MSgt was suffering from delusions of grandeur? Currently, the HYT for CMSgt is 30, SMSgt is 26, and MSgt is 24.

I will also submit that it was "time" for that MSgt to go...if he was telling what I assume was (you) a SrA that it was time to go, he would be what I consider a disgrace to his uniform and a piss-poor example of a Senior NCO.
Click to expand...
HYT changes over time and between services. When I retired back in 98, an Air Force E-7 could go to 30 years. In 2009 it was 26 years. HYT is supposed to change again in 2013.
 
Rhino said:
an Air Force E-7 could go to 30 years. In 2009 it was 26 years.
Click to expand...

Bloody Hell!!! If you've been in 30 without making 8 then it's because of just doing what you've got to do to avoid getting a courts martial.

I did see a CW5 force retired at 39.5 years and he did not want to leave. Was hard to see a grown man in tears because he was being told he wasn't qualified because of his age and time in service. I know when he was on the controls of the aircraft, is was super smooth.
 
Michael Ramsey said:
Bloody Hell!!! If you've been in 30 without making 8 then it's because of just doing what you've got to do to avoid getting a courts martial.

I did see a CW5 force retired at 39.5 years and he did not want to leave. Was hard to see a grown man in tears because he was being told he wasn't qualified because of his age and time in service. I know when he was on the controls of the aircraft, is was super smooth.
Click to expand...
The attainment of rank works differently in different branches of service. It's generally a lot harder to attain rank in the Air Force than it is in the Army for example. The other side of that coin is that it's also a lot harder to lose your rank in the Air Force than it is in the Army. The average time to make E-8 in the Air Force is 19 years, which is about the same as it was when I was in. Average time to E-9 is 22 years. But there's a little kink in the Air Force promotion system for E-8 and E-9. Promotion to those two ranks is done quite differently than it is for the lower ranks. The lower ranks are promoted mainly by skill testing and performance reports, while promotion to E-8 and E-9 pits the potential promotee up against a promotion board, which is an entirely different animal. Things start to go from objective to subjective very quickly, and people who may have excelled in the previous system don't always do so against the boards, so it isn't unusual to see E-7s go to HYT.
 
Rhino said:
The attainment of rank works differently in different branches of service. It's generally a lot harder to attain rank in the Air Force than it is in the Army for example. The other side of that coin is that it's also a lot harder to lose your rank in the Air Force than it is in the Army. The average time to make E-8 in the Air Force is 19 years, which is about the same as it was when I was in. Average time to E-9 is 22 years. But there's a little kink in the Air Force promotion system for E-8 and E-9. Promotion to those two ranks is done quite differently than it is for the lower ranks. The lower ranks are promoted mainly by skill testing and performance reports, while promotion to E-8 and E-9 pits the potential promotee up against a promotion board, which is an entirely different animal. Things start to go from objective to subjective very quickly, and people who may have excelled in the previous system don't always do so against the boards, so it isn't unusual to see E-7s go to HYT.
Click to expand...

in the ANG, everything above E-5 is a board. the bad thing for some is that there are caps on certain positions for rank, ie my recruiter can only make E-7 as well as my training person. they recently cut back my personnel person back to an E-6 max. glad i'm not in one of those.

as soon as i pass pt, i'll be eligible for E-7 next month when i hit 9 years in service.
 
jhodge83 said:
in the ANG, everything above E-5 is a board. the bad thing for some is that there are caps on certain positions for rank, ie my recruiter can only make E-7 as well as my training person. they recently cut back my personnel person back to an E-6 max. glad i'm not in one of those.

as soon as i pass pt, i'll be eligible for E-7 next month when i hit 9 years in service.
Click to expand...

I'm lookin' to cross to Reserve this Spring... no more AD for me, can't do it anymore. When I do cross, I'll be on the short list for E-6...
 
Then you have people like me, 12 years as Air Guard DSG (weekender) before going active in 1996, will retire with a total of 33 years this October
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 88 (members: 0, guests: 88)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,543
Messages
611,260
Members
74,964
Latest member
sigsag1

Share this page

Back
Top