TexasCHLforum.com

cprems wrote:Doesn't this fly in the face of Federal law?

I was under the impression that one didn't have to identify oneself when not being detained? Am I wrong?

Normally, I'd agree. But this ruling was issued by the commanding general at Fort Hood, and it applies to people who live under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ under his command. I don't know how the UCMJ views this particular scenario compared to how Federal law applies to civilians, but it would seem to me that any active-duty soldier who is stationed at Fort Hood is still under the command authority of this general, even when that soldier is off-base. And if that is true, then it seems to naturally follow that any regulation the general writes governing the behavior of troops under his command would apply as much when those troops are off-base as it would apply when they are on-base.

Maybe someone who knows about the UCMJ will post a clarification here.

http://www.kxxv.com/story/23405676/fort ... cecgbypass
Fort Hood issues new policy after soldiers protest for open carry rights
Posted: Sep 11, 2013 2:21 PM CDT
By Markeya Thomas

FORT HOOD -
After several confrontations between soldiers and civilian police, Fort hood has created a new policy.

In an email outlining the policy, Fort Hood says, "There is a growing trend of soldiers assigned to fort hood openly carrying firearms in private business establishments."


{——SNIP——}

The policy reads, "Soldiers are prohibited from refusing to present a driver's license or military identification card to any law enforcement in the exercise of his or her official duties, upon request by the law enforcement officer."

The result of indiscretions.......