• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Court rules open carry on military bases not unlawful!

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

is anybody an expert on the statutes and regulations applicable to carry on military bases?

--

http://www.nradefensefund.org/litigation.aspx#Virginia

Jeffrey Raynor (Virginia) He was charged with carrying a concealed pistol and possessing a firearm on a military installation. Neither charge was supported by the statutory language. The government’s evidence was that the grip, hammer, and the back part of the slide were visible and that it was immediately recognizable as a pistol. The evidence also showed that he was traveling in a motor vehicle on a road and was not in “a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government....” He was found not guilty of both charges according to defense counsel’s letter of April 17, 2006.

 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
imported post

More information needed. Where did this occur? What law was applied? Why was Raynor on the installation? In which court was the case heard?



Mike wrote:
is anybody an expert on the statutes and regulations applicable to carry on military bases?

--

http://www.nradefensefund.org/litigation.aspx#Virginia

Jeffrey Raynor (Virginia) He was charged with carrying a concealed pistol and possessing a firearm on a military installation. Neither charge was supported by the statutory language. The government’s evidence was that the grip, hammer, and the back part of the slide were visible and that it was immediately recognizable as a pistol. The evidence also showed that he was traveling in a motor vehicle on a road and was not in “a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government....” He was found not guilty of both charges according to defense counsel’s letter of April 17, 2006.

 

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
3,309
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

I have searched the net, and can find nothing but the same thing Mike posted. When I get to work, I will see if I can find something on the subscription Law sites.

Those of us that live near or work on military bases need to know what has happened in this case, in detail.

Regards
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
imported post

I know I researched the regs in depth a few years ago for Ft Belvoir. I never considered that the base/post might not in itself be ruled federal property.

In general, it's up to the commanding officer at each base to permit or disallow firearms in, say, dorms or housing. At the time I did the research, I didn't think much beyond that. I remember thinking most bases/posts I had been on had pretty much the same rules, and that Belvoir's were a bit more lax, but unfortunately I can't recall any of the details.

Their regulation is available through their web site. I'll try to find it again - I recall I had to dig pretty deep - and may reference statutes on which the reg is built.
 

CPL_in_WA

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
93
Location
, Mississippi, USA
imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:
I have searched the net, and can find nothing but the same thing Mike posted. When I get to work, I will see if I can find something on the subscription Law sites.

Those of us that live near or work on military bases need to know what has happened in this case, in detail.

Regards

+1

This is very interesting. Our (the base I work at) policy is no firearms period (among other things). I wonder what implications this will have.

Just to give you all anidea of the ingenious method we have of securing a sevicemember's weapon:

  • ------------------------------------.
  • ------------------------------------.
  • ------------------------------------.
  • ------------------------------------.
  • Gateguard calls for watch commander.
  • Watch commander arrives, escorts you to security office.
  • The security office, in which contains the personal weapons locker, is at least halfway across base.
  • You walk with the watch commander to the PWL.
  • You unload and show clear.
  • ... paperwork...
During this whole evolution, I'm CCW.Normally, I cannot carry anywhere on the base. I've been told to MEET the watch commander at the security office. It doesn't happen often, but it's still unescorted. :?

Editedto remove military procedures.
 

fxdwngflyr

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
31
Location
Where, you, the Government, sends me, , Germany
imported post

WOW, I sure would like more information on this. As an active duty member I am accountable to the orders and regulations by my superiors but some of the orders are unlawful.

As we are all aware the commanding general of USARAK has made both open carry and CCW on or off post by active duty members a violation of an order. I am sure that we could get a better foothold and get this "policy" revoked if there were more information on this case.

As for POF, personally owned firearms, they are covered in most base regulations and in the 190 series regulations. A good place for research is www.usapa.army.mil and will give access to army regs.

More info please.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

OK - got this from an attorney familiar with the case: "Raynor was [charged under] 18 USC Sec. 930 [and not the regulation applicable to the Pentagon reservation].
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Raynor was not on the Pentagon reservation - apparently was on Quantico - so, maybe, unless a given base has a regulation against it, OC and possession say in trunks, is lawful on military bases.
 

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
3,309
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
Raynor was not on the Pentagon reservation - apparently was on Quantico - so, maybe, unless a given base has a regulation against it, OC and possession say in trunks, is lawful on military bases.

If it was Quantico, there are a range of possibilities. There is "Main Side", "Basic School" side, and the roads in between.

If he was on Main Side, he would most certainly be in violation of the Commandants orders against POW on base.

If he was on one of the connector roads between main side and the western half of the base, those are public roads, and generally citizens traveling them would NOT fall under the orders issued by the Commandant. In fact there are guard posts at either end of the public areas of those roads. While these roads do cross a part of the federal reservation, they are public roads, not maintained by Quantico, and they are frequented by a lot of people not necessarily entering the base proper.

If he was on the Basic School side of the base, there are public roads that cross the base, and generally people have a right of passage through the base. Also the Ranges are on the Basic school side, and citizens can and do enter that portion of the base for competitions, and other purposes with firearms. In fact most of the hunting on the base is on that western portion.

There are also non military facilities on the western part of the base that do not fall under the directives of the Commandant.

We really need to know more about what happened here.

Regards
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
imported post

If nothing else, the title is false and should be changed. There are people that will just remember the post's title and incorporate that in the minds as the law. I understand that people like to write (and read) sexy titled threads but misleading readers is a disservice.
 
Top