As I said, it is CUSTOMARY to cede jurisdiction, but not required. Any trial would be invalid due to jurisdictional defect; again, unless the supreme court said otherwise.

If this were not the case, for example soldiers could, in theory, be extradited for murder in the performance of their duties, by civilian courts in other countries; and have those extradition orders enforced by civil authorities in the U.S. (because treaty obligations would require U.S. courts to do so). Civilian courts do not have such jurisdiction, unless that jurisdiction is VOLUNTARILY ceded to them by command, or by the orders of the supreme court.

This in fact was one of the major objections the U.S. had to the international criminal court; and ultimately why we refuse to assent to membership, or jurisdiction.

In another example, environmentalist and otherwise anti-military judges in California have attempted to order the army, marine corps, air force, and navy to halt training activities in several different military reservations.

In each case, these orders were ignored; and no crime was committed, nor prosecuted; because the orders were invalid on their face due to jurisdictional defect. The orders were all later vacated by higher courts at the request of either the JAG or the solicitor generals office depending on the level of court involved.

If you don’t believe me, there are literally hundreds of articles written on the subject. A cursory search should find several.

Now, if command says it does, fine; but it is a discretionary judgement on the part of command, not a legal requirement.

It is CUSTOMARY for commands to cede jurisdiction on most civil and criminal cases involving non-military jurisdictions and the general public; but it isn’t required.

Civil law (including criminal law) only applies to those individuals, at the discretion of the chain of command; and 18usc is civil law.

This is a fundamental jurisdictional issue; and the basis for example, for holding military tribunals for unlawful combatants, without benefit of civil rights or civilian council; among other issues.

The fact is, military law, and civilian law are different, until and unless the president, or supreme court say otherwise (the UCMJ specifically recognizes the supreme court, but not lower federal courts).

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” –Thomas Jeffrson

WWII comes to mind … as well as several prisons in the deep south that issued prison trustees shotguns.

The felon in possession law may be found in 18 USC 922, subsection g. I don’t find any exemptions or statements of non-applicability in it. Of course, we’d be foolish to expect our lords and masters to obey their own laws.

That’s not to say I think our military should use hardened criminals, but it’s not ahistorical.

Of course, that wouldn’t fit MSNBC’s agenda….