Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: House Republicans Sponsor Bill to Allow Guns on Military Bases

  1. #1
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950

    House Republicans Sponsor Bill to Allow Guns on Military Bases

    http://minutemennews.com/2013/09/hou...ilitary-bases/

    A step in the right direction.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Guy View Post
    It will likely be a hard fight, seeing as there will be a DROP in the amount of "workplace violence", and the antis will have one less fabricated example to use.
    But I hope it passes, and will be contacting the AZ representatives (I'll say "my" when they represent the people).

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    They'll need: 1) BR chk 2) safety classes 3) note from mom

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,163

    H.R.3199 if you're curious

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...temp/~bdALP6::
    Prognosis

    3% chance of getting past committee.
    1% chance of being enacted.

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr3199
    Last edited by Nightmare; 09-29-2013 at 05:17 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The text of H.R.3199 has not yet been received from GPO
    Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from the Government Printing Office a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed.




    bummer

  6. #6
    Regular Member Black_water's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    On The Border in AZ
    Posts
    152
    I never could wrap my brain around the current policy.

  7. #7
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Assuming it is a good bill, the only chance we have is flooding the house with phone calls, letters, and emails. Call your rep every day....

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Turbod'1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Henderson, NV now Texas. I move a lot.
    Posts
    184
    I find this very unlikely to happen for the simple fact that, despite the average military member being viewed by many as responsible, patriotic good guys -- when I left Alaska, General Garrett, in all of his infinite wisdom, decided that because of an alcohol fueled barracks firearm 'incident' [keep in mind that guns are ALREADY banned in the barracks] he would BAN alcohol in (and ONLY in)... the barracks.

    But hey, we're responsible, patriotic good guys.

    Or are we?

    This was to be a trial period of 30 days, with subsequent reviews of policy --with the presumed goal to 'figured out how' to mitigate such [apparently common] atrocities.

    [Didn't do **** about vandalism, car break-ins or rampant burglaries, though. ]

    At the point I left Alaska --110 days later-- it was STILL in effect [and still is, I believe?], which merely pointed out that, if you're 18ish and marry the local (and fattest/most available, per observation) ****, you get a house and, among other things, 2nd and 4th amendment protection; with the bonus of being paid EXTRA for having the 'responsibility' that a person, perhaps, twice your age, 4 times your rank and 25x your experience/dues paid, who chooses to not marry out of desperation/opportunity, was stripped.

    Politician: You think HE didn't get to go home and have his guns, beer/wine/whatever while I couldn't even watch a Steeler game while enjoying a few brews?

    If you don't believe that military 'Top Brass' are politicians? You've never been in the military.

    Period.

    Here's a link to familiarize yourself with the man [Who's NOT an exception, though this policy WAS]: http://www.ktuu.com/news/alaskamilit...,6807264.story

    It should be noted that he had an 'open forum' with us troops and yet, I guess it was because it was February[?], it was more of an 'awareness' briefing. Figure it out.

    The Army gave me many experiences --both good and bad, yet, when you realize that you're being treated as a pawn, despite your sacrifices...

    *sigh*

    I guess now, with all the draw downs, the Military will stop accepting and training felons ['bout time!] and take the route that -- "Hey, you're lucky to be here! You should be thanking us!" -- which, to a point, I agree with [I grew a lot as a person from my hardships/experiences]!

    That said, STOP paying people to get married and breed and all the bonuses that come from that DESPITE the very well known fact that the people that benefit the most aren't the warriors, rather, the opportunist who use the military as a form of 'Welfare'.

    I'm rambling so... suffice to say, Service Members [SM], outside Military Police and other 'vetted' SM will NEVER be given the right to carry on Military Federal property.

    I should make this a new thread... hm.

    Period.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbod'1 View Post
    I find this very unlikely to happen for the simple fact that, despite the average military member being viewed by many as responsible, patriotic good guys -- when I left Alaska, General Garrett, in all of his infinite wisdom, decided that because of an alcohol fueled barracks firearm 'incident' [keep in mind that guns are ALREADY banned in the barracks] he would BAN alcohol in (and ONLY in)... the barracks.

    But hey, we're responsible, patriotic good guys.

    Or are we?

    This was to be a trial period of 30 days, with subsequent reviews of policy --with the presumed goal to 'figured out how' to mitigate such [apparently common] atrocities.

    [Didn't do **** about vandalism, car break-ins or rampant burglaries, though. ]

    At the point I left Alaska --110 days later-- it was STILL in effect [and still is, I believe?], which merely pointed out that, if you're 18ish and marry the local (and fattest/most available, per observation) ****, you get a house and, among other things, 2nd and 4th amendment protection; with the bonus of being paid EXTRA for having the 'responsibility' that a person, perhaps, twice your age, 4 times your rank and 25x your experience/dues paid, who chooses to not marry out of desperation/opportunity, was stripped.

    Politician: You think HE didn't get to go home and have his guns, beer/wine/whatever while I couldn't even watch a Steeler game while enjoying a few brews?

    If you don't believe that military 'Top Brass' are politicians? You've never been in the military.

    Period.

    Here's a link to familiarize yourself with the man [Who's NOT an exception, though this policy WAS]: http://www.ktuu.com/news/alaskamilit...,6807264.story

    It should be noted that he had an 'open forum' with us troops and yet, I guess it was because it was February[?], it was more of an 'awareness' briefing. Figure it out.

    The Army gave me many experiences --both good and bad, yet, when you realize that you're being treated as a pawn, despite your sacrifices...

    *sigh*

    I guess now, with all the draw downs, the Military will stop accepting and training felons ['bout time!] and take the route that -- "Hey, you're lucky to be here! You should be thanking us!" -- which, to a point, I agree with [I grew a lot as a person from my hardships/experiences]!

    That said, STOP paying people to get married and breed and all the bonuses that come from that DESPITE the very well known fact that the people that benefit the most aren't the warriors, rather, the opportunist who use the military as a form of 'Welfare'.

    I'm rambling so... suffice to say, Service Members [SM], outside Military Police and other 'vetted' SM will NEVER be given the right to carry on Military Federal property.

    I should make this a new thread... hm.

    Period.
    YUP!
    I had to check my guns into the unit armory, get permission to draw them and explain where they would be stored if not returned during normal business hours was limited to a 6 pack maximum of beer in my room even as a NCO and had to deal with someone inspecting my place every Friday which means I spent every Thursday even my off Thursdays cleaning for 8 hrs.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    460
    It would be nice. But there is a better chance for a salmon to swim upstream out of season jump out and filet itself in midair and land directly on your grill than for the brass to allow "unauthorized" firearms on base.
    Last edited by Bernymac; 10-07-2013 at 10:48 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Fallon, NV
    Posts
    577
    Well, if the bill passed and was signed into law, they wouldn't be unauthorized firearms any more.
    Last edited by FallonJeeper; 10-07-2013 at 07:47 PM.
    Hoka hey

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Peoples Republic of North Las Vegas
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by gunrunner1911 View Post
    YUP!
    I had to check my guns into the unit armory, get permission to draw them and explain where they would be stored if not returned during normal business hours was limited to a 6 pack maximum of beer in my room even as a NCO and had to deal with someone inspecting my place every Friday which means I spent every Thursday even my off Thursdays cleaning for 8 hrs.
    Short story that hopefully will not go long. As a retired Master Chief (NAVY E-9/28 yrs) part of my duties were Bachelor Enlisted Quarters "health and welfare" inspections that included everyone in the building. As we had members from all branches of the military I had a simple policy.

    Part of the inspection included an E4 or E5 tagging along that made notes if you were naughty or nice taking care of your room. ANY branch of the military that had their service's version of an NCO or higher in the room got a "private" closed door inspection with me alone.

    It consisted of me asking if they had enough beer to make it through the week-end and some casual BS to kill time and then me walking outside to tell the E4-E5 that the room was outstanding (basically 4.0 out of 4.0). If the military branch you are in thinks enough of you to promote you to the NCO level then you know how to be a professional and don't need me to baby sit you. NCOs had enough grief in doing their job without being hassled. I didn't like it as an E5-E6 and I was sure was not going to perpetuate the crap.

    When I retired in 1995 I pretty much did not go back to military bases because of the distance from where I retired to. Sold house in 2008 (PA) and traveled full time in motor coach going basically from RV park to RV park on the bases throughout the U.S. I thought it sucked when I retired during the Clinton administration, but I never realized how bad it got until I got to Ft Huachuca in Sierra Vista and talked to various soldiers and found out they trusted them to carry weapons in to combat but not to have readily accessible back home in case the base came under attack. The Clintonification of the military shows in the flag officers and the senior enlisted leadership today.

    I am sad to see this happen to the greatest military in the world.

    NAVYBLUE

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •