Fort Hood issues new policy after soldiers protest for OC

[The Annoyed Man]

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.......

[cprems]

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?

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

[E.Marquez]

They are, and they are now required by regulation required to present DL or Mil ID if asked for by a LEO.

[JALLEN]

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.

I believe, based on my time in the service, not as a Judge Advocate, that for active duty members, the UCMJ applies 24/7. The military can, for example declare certain business establishments, and areas off limits, and regulate conduct is a variety of other and sundry ways. Being in the military circumscribes some of the ordinary Constitutional rights afforded to other citizens.

[ghostrider]

Being in the military circumscribes some of the ordinary Constitutional rights afforded to other citizens.

I think its been that way for a long time, but it seems so wrong that the people expected to protect our freedoms are (almost by definition, it seems) not allowed to exercise all of them.

[baldeagle]

If the Navy can tell sailors which bars they can enter and which bars they can't enter when they are in port, the Army can darn sure tell their soldiers what they can do when they're off duty. When you're in the military, your butt belongs to them and you do what they say or you go to Leavenworth.

[C-dub]

Yeah, while in the military, we do give up some rights, but we do get to do some pretty cool stuff too.

However, was the guy arrested for "rudely" carry his rifle active duty and subject to these new regulations?

[E.Marquez]

Being in the military circumscribes some of the ordinary Constitutional rights afforded to other citizens.

I think its been that way for a long time, but it seems so wrong that the people expected to protect our freedoms are (almost by definition, it seems) not allowed to exercise all of them.

There is no constitutional issue here as far as I can see...

And as several LEO friends and I were just discussing yesterday when this policy came out.. Contact with a citizen in a non arrest / detention / investigative way.. AND the LEO still wants to ask for Id is very far and few.

Both officers I was riding with to GT Distributors, with a combined 8 plus years on the road.. could not recall doing a contact, wanting ID, that was not covered by law requiring the citizen to Id them self.

Im sure it happens, but it's not often I guess.

[cherokeepilot]

If I remember my Texas Statutes correctly, any Commissioned Peace Officer can demand production of a Texas DL without PC. Additional, coverage provides that an individual in Texas regardless of military status must produce identification upon request/demand of Texas LEO with or without PC. Failure or refusal to produce identification or properly identified will get you a visit to the local lockup until you are identified. A Texas based individual took the case to SCOTUS. We the individuals lost. Sorry about that but be prepared to id yourself at any time and as I tell my young airmen and officers..........make sure you have paid off all your tickets in Onelight, Texas. Or be prepared to spend time at the local lockup. 73s

[Jaguar]

If I remember my Texas Statutes correctly, any Commissioned Peace Officer can demand production of a Texas DL without PC. Additional, coverage provides that an individual in Texas regardless of military status must produce identification upon request/demand of Texas LEO with or without PC. Failure or refusal to produce identification or properly identified will get you a visit to the local lockup until you are identified. A Texas based individual took the case to SCOTUS. We the individuals lost. Sorry about that but be prepared to id yourself at any time and as I tell my young airmen and officers..........make sure you have paid off all your tickets in Onelight, Texas. Or be prepared to spend time at the local lockup. 73s

The way I see it, unless you are lawfully arrested you do not have to ID yourself to a LEO. If lawfully detained (or a witness to a crime) you do not have to ID yourself, but if you give false information while being lawfully detained (or as a witness to a crime) you commit an offense.

Code: Select all

PENAL CODE - TITLE 8. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 38. OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATION

Sec. 38.02.  FAILURE TO IDENTIFY.  (a)  A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b)  A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1)  lawfully arrested the person;

(2)  lawfully detained the person;  or

(3)  requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.

Of course this flies out the window if you are armed and have a CHL, then you must produce ID and CHL upon demand, no matter if detained, arrested, witness to a crime, or "just demanding."

Code: Select all

GC §411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. (a) If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.

[mr surveyor]

I read this thread and the link/video earlier today and was a bit confused by the topic .... apparently, I still am confused.

There was the mention of open carry, and pics of long guns, then there was mention of handguns also. Are the mil guys open carrying handguns in town?

And as for the CHL thing, can't any active duty service person qualify for a CHL, regardless of age (maybe at least 18)?

Still trying to understand the issue for the story.

[G26ster]

Don't know why we are discussing state or federal law here for orders issued to military personnel by their command. If the command says you produce ID, then you produce ID. End of story.

[texanjoker]

Interesting thread and comments on the news article itself. People forget that in certain jobs one gives up some rights and must follow orders. I wonder how many actual complaints they receive up in that area with guys carrying guns refusing to id?

[JALLEN]

Being in the military circumscribes some of the ordinary Constitutional rights afforded to other citizens.

I think its been that way for a long time, but it seems so wrong that the people expected to protect our freedoms are (almost by definition, it seems) not allowed to exercise all of them.

It is necessary for good order and discipline. Military members are somewhat proscribed in political activity, they are not free to come and go as they please, they have to obey orders whether it suits them or not, they have to dress, meet certain requirements, groom themselves, etc that civilians have choices about.

Like I heard a SEAL guy say, you can't say, at 3 AM in a dark enemy harbor, freezing cold, "You know what guys, I think I wanna go home now!"