Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Thoughts on Military bases not allowing OC/CC

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    What are your thoughts of Military bases not allowing their soldiers to OC or CC while on base?

    One of the higher uppers said "The base is our home. We have no need to have our soldiers armed while they're home. That's just silly. Do you need to be armed while you're out commuting and visiting with your friends in your neighborhood?"

    I personally find this silly. Why can't a soldier, who is a very well trained individual who has been taught firearm safety and procedures, be able to lawfully carry while on base?

    If bases allowed their soldiers to carry, the Ft. Hood incident may not have been as severe as it was. If the soldiers were armed, then who knows, maybe there wouldn't have been as many causalities and injuries if some of the present soldiers were armed.

    Remember, these are men and women who go through top of the line training, and undergo criminal background checks. They know how and when to operate a weapon.

    Apparently Law Enforcement are the only ones who may be armed while on base. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

    They should have the same rights as us.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Curtis, Washington, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    What are your thoughts of Military bases not allowing their soldiers to OC or CC while on base?

    One of the higher uppers said "The base is our home. We have no need to have our soldiers armed while they're home. That's just silly. Do you need to be armed while you're out commuting and visiting with your friends in your neighborhood?"

    I personally find this silly. Why can't a soldier, who is a very well trained individual who has been taught firearm safety and procedures, be able to lawfully carry while on base?

    If bases allowed their soldiers to carry, the Ft. Hood incident may not have been as severe as it was. If the soldiers were armed, then who knows, maybe there wouldn't have been as many causalities and injuries if some of the present soldiers were armed.

    Remember, these are men and women who go through top of the line training, and undergo criminal background checks. They know how and when to operate a weapon.

    Apparently Law Enforcement are the only ones who may be armed while on base. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

    They should have the same rights as us.
    Yeah, one thought. It wasn't mine, but this Gentleman said it best.



    "When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen."

    ~George Washington

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Layton, Utah, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    I completly agree that we should be able to carry on base. I am stationed at Fort Rucker right now and it drives me up a wall to unloaed my weapon just before coming on to the base and and load it as I am driving off. You also have to register all you firearms witht he Provost Marshall. I don't like that either (but it was a good things for one of my firearms). Someday it might change but till then I will follow the rules they put out there. At least they have a few free ranges we can use on post.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
    Posts
    753

    Post imported post

    Did he say this before or after Ft. Hood?

    My answer would be the same, yes I do carry when at home and in my neighborhood. Not for fear of neighbors or family but for intruders and invaders. Be prepared, always vigilant, etc.

    We don't get to pick when or where we may have to defend our self or others, therefore at all times we should have the necessary tools at hand to stand ready if today is the day.

    Had Hasan believed that he would be met with immediate armed resistance by his would be victims, it is possible he wouldn't have done what he did. It most assuredly would have reduced the number of victims.

    This is just another instance of a "Gun Free Zone" being attractive as an area where someone intent on doing harm can be assured of a large number of victims and sufficient time to cause damage before being opposed.

    Hasan is now a hero for his cause for the number of victims, the location of the attack, the blow to morale, and for being able to gain such a position while by all reports OPENLY professing his devout muslim beliefs. Yet, the Army, media, and Executive branch still refuse to make the obvious connection that this was a terrorist act and want to downplay his religious beliefs to avoid "backlash" against the muslim community.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    It is the same as colleges and malls. Gun free zone policies will only be followed by those wishing to abide by the law. People who are intent to do harm will not see your no guns allowed sign and turn around and go home.

  6. #6
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    Great Article worth reading...
    http://www.thedailysound.com/randyalcorn/111009rot


    So much for gun control By RANDY ALCORN — Nov. 10, 2009
    There is little to salvage from last week’s mass murder at Fort Hood, Texas, but there are some stark realizations this heartbreaking horror exposes. One is the wishful but mistaken notion that such incidents can be prevented by laws prohibiting or strictly restricting access to firearms. The Second Amendment not with standing, U.S. military bases prohibit unauthorized personnel from carrying firearms on base. Access to military weapons is carefully restricted and weapons are secured in armories.
    Never the less, even within the well regulated conditions of a military base, a man was able to acquire and conceal two powerful personal handguns which he used to murder 13 people and wound dozens of others.
    The argument that a prohibition against firearms will eliminate the possession of firearms by anyone is clearly refuted by the ample empirical evidence that prohibition simply does not succeed in its intended objective when the subject of the prohibition is something that enough of the population wants. No matter how draconian the restrictions or dire the legal consequences prohibition is defeated by desire.
    Prostitution, booze, and drugs are or have been prohibited by law with no appreciable effect on eliminating any of them. In fact, illegal drugs consistently find their way into prisons—the most secured, restrictive institutions in society. Obviously, if prison inmates can gain access to drugs, and military base personnel can gain access to guns, in spite of heavy security and strict prohibitions, how will laws prevent anyone from having either?
    While good people are rightly concerned and alarmed by the lethal violence visited on society through the device of firearms, rational people understand that there is no legal magic wand that will abolish such violence simply by prohibiting possession of the device. People who want guns will get them. People who want to harm others will do so, but the amount of harm they can do could be reduced if more people were armed rather than disarmed.
    If among the murdered and wounded at Fort Hood any had been armed, the slaughter would have been less. The gunman would have been confronted by people who could defend themselves rather than by helpless victims. Free people should not only be able to arm themselves, they should be able to carry those arms on their person as they do their cell phones. Self defense is among the most basic of human and civil rights.
    Those who fear a dangerous wild-west scenario if citizens were freely armed should consider that there is danger now. There are not enough armed police to be everywhere all the time, and anyone can be caught in a situation as occurred at Fort Hood. Most people who drive cars do not drive them recklessly, and most people who own a gun do not go about shooting others without just cause.
    Another realization coming out of the Fort Hood incident is that twisted minds often wrap themselves around fixed ideologies. That, however, does not prove a cause and effect relationship between a particular ideology and the detrimental behavior of those with twisted minds.
    The murdering major at Fort Hood was a devout Muslim who was heard to shout “God is Great” as he mercilessly and methodically shot his victims. Not unexpectedly, after the shootings there soon followed threats against mosques and condemnations of Muslims.
    If murder and savagery can be eliminated by eradicating a religion, then not one but nearly all religions, and many political ideologies, must be eliminated as well. Damaged psyches, weak minds, and evil souls embrace and employ ideologies to justify their heinous actions and to salve their psychological pain. These disordered minds can be found within the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish faiths. There are also practicing paranoids preaching hyper-patriotic versions of political ideologies who can become mass murders for the cause. Recall Timothy McVeigh.
    Eliminating entire categories of people based on their religious or political beliefs will be ineffective in riding society of senseless violence. Savagery and mayhem lurk under even the thickest veneer of civilization. Wackos will simply blend in to what ever social milieu is available and pervert any ideology to validate their homicidal violence.
    Unless and until science can develop a flawless wacko-meter that detects these aberrant personalities, they will always be moving unidentified among us. Ironically, the perpetrator of the Fort Hood massacre was a psychiatrist, the closest thing we have to a wacko-meter. So, maybe we should round up all the shrinks.
    There are no ready remedies to prevent further incidents as occurred at Fort Hood, but there is awareness, for those with open minds, that police state restrictions or targeted pogroms would not only be ineffective, they would undermine the very essence of freedom and justice upon which this nation was founded, and eventually make victims of us all.


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    90

    Post imported post

    Unfortunately many of our young military members are simply not old enough to legally purchase or carry firearms unless of course they are in a war zone or are training for war. As most bases in the U.S. are closed to the general public the only folks that can cause a problem are their brothers at arms.
    The entry points of most bases or posts are guarded by armed guards. The vast majority of these guards are civilians that are contracted by the department of defense due to the manning shortages caused by the all volunteer military.
    To say that all military members should be armed on base in order to protect themselves from rogue military personnel is akin to saying that everyone in your family should be armed while at home to protect themselves in case one of your family goes rogue.
    While the FT. Hood shootings are indeed sickening there is not much that the post could have done to prevent it from happening. In today's very politically correct world the only avenue that would have helped to prevent this tragedy is closed.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,098

    Post imported post

    virgil47 wrote:
    Unfortunately many of our young military members are simply not old enough to legally purchase or carry firearms unless of course they are in a war zone or are training for war. As most bases in the U.S. are closed to the general public the only folks that can cause a problem are their brothers at arms.
    The entry points of most bases or posts are guarded by armed guards. The vast majority of these guards are civilians that are contracted by the department of defense due to the manning shortages caused by the all volunteer military.
    To say that all military members should be armed on base in order to protect themselves from rogue military personnel is akin to saying that everyone in your family should be armed while at home to protect themselves in case one of your family goes rogue.
    While the FT. Hood shootings are indeed sickening there is not much that the post could have done to prevent it from happening. In today's very politically correct world the only avenue that would have helped to prevent this tragedy is closed.
    I don't think anyone is seriously claiming to support arming everyone on base, but as we are labeled the Armed Services it would not be inappropriate.

    If you are old enough to be in the Armed Forces, and have passed both Basic and Occupational training, you are old enough to own private weapons.

    If one of my 18-year-old Airmen can be trusted to not cause aircraft or bombs to fall in the wrong places, they can be trusted with a personal weapon.

    Ifthey can be trusted with an issued weapon,they can be trusted with a privately owned weapon.

    Ifthey can NOT be trusted with an issue weapon, why the h3!! are they in the Armed Forces?!?!?!

  9. #9
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    I carried fully automatic weapons M-60 machine gun amoung themin Vietnam and was well trained in the use of explosives.I was 18. Odd how we are trusted there but not here.At any rate the right to bear arms is a basic human right that no one can bestow on us or take away.Perhaps if even one person was armed maybe it could have had very diffierent effect on the out come.As the article said guns are banned on post but a terrorist managed to come up with one.

    We need to shut these people up like mayor Daly of Chicago,these elitist that keep thinking they know best and blamed guns and the 2nd ammendment.These people really need to be removed.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    One of the things that really gets me about the attack is the lack of resistance from trained military persons. How can we expect students and average folks to fight back when faced with this situationwhen members of the Army couldn't do so.

    Make no mistake, it takes a lot of courage to go TOWARDS gunfire when you are armed, little alone unarmed...I surelydon't knowif I would be able to do so.

    We recently had a shooting at a drug testing clinic in the area and the gunman told a guyin the lobby to get out, which he wasted no time in doing so. Now he is having to deal with the 'why me' and 'what if I had done something' thoughts.

    I think they should be allowed to carry sidearms AND I also think the security needs to be restored to Military and increased...we ARE at war!

    Gary

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    virgil47 wrote:
    Unfortunately many of our young military members are simply not old enough to legally purchase or carry firearms unless of course they are in a war zone or are training for war. As most bases in the U.S. are closed to the general public the only folks that can cause a problem are their brothers at arms.
    The entry points of most bases or posts are guarded by armed guards. The vast majority of these guards are civilians that are contracted by the department of defense due to the manning shortages caused by the all volunteer military.
    To say that all military members should be armed on base in order to protect themselves from rogue military personnel is akin to saying that everyone in your family should be armed while at home to protect themselves in case one of your family goes rogue.
    While the FT. Hood shootings are indeed sickening there is not much that the post could have done to prevent it from happening. In today's very politically correct world the only avenue that would have helped to prevent this tragedy is closed.
    Many are not old enough to drink either but many bases let them or used let them drink a few beers on base.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    90

    Post imported post

    PavePusher wrote:
    virgil47 wrote:
    Unfortunately many of our young military members are simply not old enough to legally purchase or carry firearms unless of course they are in a war zone or are training for war. As most bases in the U.S. are closed to the general public the only folks that can cause a problem are their brothers at arms.
    The entry points of most bases or posts are guarded by armed guards. The vast majority of these guards are civilians that are contracted by the department of defense due to the manning shortages caused by the all volunteer military.
    To say that all military members should be armed on base in order to protect themselves from rogue military personnel is akin to saying that everyone in your family should be armed while at home to protect themselves in case one of your family goes rogue.
    While the FT. Hood shootings are indeed sickening there is not much that the post could have done to prevent it from happening. In today's very politically correct world the only avenue that would have helped to prevent this tragedy is closed.
    I don't think anyone is seriously claiming to support arming everyone on base, but as we are labeled the Armed Services it would not be inappropriate.

    If you are old enough to be in the Armed Forces, and have passed both Basic and Occupational training, you are old enough to own private weapons.

    If one of my 18-year-old Airmen can be trusted to not cause aircraft or bombs to fall in the wrong places, they can be trusted with a personal weapon.

    Ifthey can be trusted with an issued weapon,they can be trusted with a privately owned weapon.

    Ifthey can NOT be trusted with an issue weapon, why the h3!! are they in the Armed Forces?!?!?!
    We are called the armed forces however that is a euphemism for the military not anactual descriptive term.

    If you are old enough to vote for the president and go off to war why can't you buy a beer or a handgun? Ask the politicians.

    They can't be trusted with personal weapons because the liberals don't feel they can control them if they are armed.

    They are in the military because the politicians are afraid to fight.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    Post imported post

    If your Occupational Specialty/Classification Code/Collateral Duties involve training in and handling firearms, there is no reason on earth that you shouldn't be able to carry a firearm on base.

    If you're old enough to die for your country, so that others continue to have the right to deny you YOUR rights, you should be able to carry on base.

    It's sad that our country asks young men and women just out of high school to volunteer to make the ultimate sacrifice for their fellow citizens, then denies them the right to defend themselves.
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  14. #14
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    first off, condolences to those who lost their lives at ft hood.I am having trouble wrapping my mind around the fact that the people who are to protect our country are forced to be unarmed and can not protect themselfs, and how the locale police could respond to the base faster than the MP's. Or why the police would have to?
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  15. #15
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    first off, condolences to those who lost their lives at ft hood.I am having trouble wrapping my mind around the fact that the people who are to protect our country are forced to be unarmed and can not protect themselfs, and how the locale police could respond to the base faster than the MP's. Or why the police would have to?
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    The base contracts with local police. Therefore, the local police not only have a working relationship with the base, but they have officers who actually patrol the base itself. A lot of the MPs are deployed overseas, and it saves them $$$ to hire officers from the civilian side.

  17. #17
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    The base contracts with local police. Therefore, the local police not only have a working relationship with the base, but they have officers who actually patrol the base itself. A lot of the MPs are deployed overseas, and it saves them $$$ to hire officers from the civilian side.
    Some places, Ft. Drum especially, have a two-man team of an MP and local police officer in every car.
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Seattle, ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    What are your thoughts of Military bases not allowing their soldiers to OC or CC while on base?....

    Remember, these are men and women who go through top of the line training... They know how and when to operate a weapon.
    I think they should have the same rights to OC or CC as anyone else.

    Two things I did not do while in the Navy;
    1. Set foot on a Navy vessel.
    2. Receive any firearms training.

    Oh yeah, Hi! I'm new here.

    Rich H

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    Soldiers should absolutely be armed if they desire to be so.

    Welcome W9GFO!

  20. #20
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    New from Oleg Volk:





  21. #21
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    ...

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Spokane, ,
    Posts
    32

    Post imported post

    Most stateside bases have the same firearm rules(some may vary slightly):

    1. Private firearms are only allowed at the skeet/firing range, carried while hunting, at your home on base (properly registered by your unit commander and MP's)(not allowed in dormitories), or locked up at the base MP armory (with your commanders prior written approval).

    MP's keep a list of all registered weapons stored in base housing to cross ref during DV calls. So much for privacy.

    2. Carry of private firearms while in uniform is never permitted, even when you are driving offbase to your house or to lunch. (I assume this is for liability reasons- a pretty chicken _ _ _ _ rule) So ccw or not, being in uniform gets you in military trouble even if you get a clean kill off-base.

    3. Passing though the gate, your private weapon needs to be unloaded and in a case separate from the ammo, and then on its way to (see #1 above). MP random inpections NEVER include the person who's private vehicle is being searched.

    This said, I know MANY servicemen who realize that protecting themselves and those around them in an inherent right they should not have to give up because they wear the uniform.

    They choose to carry concealed everyday when driving to/from work etc. Most lock the weapons in their vehicles during the workday.

    Curiously, General Officers are provided a personal Government issued pistol they are authorized byDoDto carry to protect themselves with presumably because they are higher value targetsthan a lowly private. Not sure I can remember the last time I heard of aGO being targetedon U.S.soil-can you?

    I doubt the CCW issue will ever be tackled on military bases. It is the same reason they use to invadethe personal dormitory rooms, vehicles, and houses on base- "out ofmilitary necessity/good order and conduct etc" nowadays, just being in uniform makes servicemen a target though I doubt they will extend theDoD rulesto cover those without stars on their shoulders.

    The biggest danger in this is NOT (according to General Casey, Army Chief of Staff) "a loss of diversity"

    - it's the fact that the terrorists now know how defenselesstroops are on base and how easy it is to get on a base in the U.S.



  23. #23
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    These are Isreali soldiers in a PX at one of their bases .Note 30 rnd mags in their belts.In Isreal every man and women is required to serve 2 years in their military.Probably would not have some islamic nut job shoot this one up.Wouldn't get far.





  24. #24
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    DEROS72 wrote:
    These are Isreali soldiers in a PX at one of their bases .Note 30 rnd mags in their belts.In Isreal every man and women is required to serve 2 years in their military.Probably would not have some islamic nut job shoot this one up.Wouldn't get far.

    A long but good read...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces

Posting Permissions

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