-
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.
-
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.
Pentagon to revise personal guns policy, WashingtonTimes.com
- Thread starter Master Doug Huffman
- Start date
PavePusher
Regular Member
imported post
:?
:X :banghead::cuss:
:?
:X :banghead::cuss:
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
The article is short on details, but it sounds like the restrictive rules are going to be combined into a single regulation for all of the services.
So, it sounds like the lesson they learned from Fort Hood is that "Restrictions need to be universal," instead of "If restrictions are relaxed, future Fort Hoods might be cut short by well-trained, law-abiding, armed military members."
The article is short on details, but it sounds like the restrictive rules are going to be combined into a single regulation for all of the services.
So, it sounds like the lesson they learned from Fort Hood is that "Restrictions need to be universal," instead of "If restrictions are relaxed, future Fort Hoods might be cut short by well-trained, law-abiding, armed military members."
SFCRetired
Regular Member
imported post
Robocop
Regular Member
imported post
We should remember who the CoC is.:cuss:
We should remember who the CoC is.:cuss:
SFCRetired
Regular Member
imported post
Robocop wrote:
Has nothing to do with the present occupant of the White House. The "no weapons" policy was in force back in the seventies and may have been earlier than that.
I think it has more to do with the many politicians in uniform who would have us believe that they are military.
Robocop wrote:
Has nothing to do with the present occupant of the White House. The "no weapons" policy was in force back in the seventies and may have been earlier than that.
I think it has more to do with the many politicians in uniform who would have us believe that they are military.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
SFCRetired wrote:
SFCRetired wrote:
At least since 1974.
labteche
Regular Member
imported post
I found the memo about the recommendations at http://www.defense.gov/news/d20100415fthood1.pdfand it just says in recommendation 3.8 that the DoD does not have a DoD wide policy and that they need to create one.
Who knows what that policy will say could say eitherto follow State/Federal laws or no privately owned weapons. Trying to find out how to contact The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Mr. James R. Clapper Jr. who is in charge of preparing and coordinating the new policy by June 2010. To see if or even when they will talk about it and if it is possible to get Pro gun Senators/Congress involved in this?
I found the memo about the recommendations at http://www.defense.gov/news/d20100415fthood1.pdfand it just says in recommendation 3.8 that the DoD does not have a DoD wide policy and that they need to create one.
Who knows what that policy will say could say eitherto follow State/Federal laws or no privately owned weapons. Trying to find out how to contact The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Mr. James R. Clapper Jr. who is in charge of preparing and coordinating the new policy by June 2010. To see if or even when they will talk about it and if it is possible to get Pro gun Senators/Congress involved in this?
SemperFiTexan
New member
imported post
The military brass are more concerned with their political careers (after their retirment) than they are about the welfare of their troops. In ten years in the Marines I witnessed this attitude time and time again.
The military brass are more concerned with their political careers (after their retirment) than they are about the welfare of their troops. In ten years in the Marines I witnessed this attitude time and time again.
jihadthis
Regular Member
imported post
I currently live on base and to say I wasn't happy to have to REGISTER my guns with them would be an understatement. However, I did clearly understand when I read and signed my housing agreement that in order to keep pows (weapons not prisoners ha ha) in my quarters I would have to register them with the provost marshal, and understand that I could only have them in my pov when I was going directly from my quarters off post or visa versa.
This is all an unfortunate knee jerk reaction to the Ft Hood shooting in that the shooter didn't even live on post and while I know ignorance of the law is no excuse, never once in my 19 years and counting of service have I ever been told (outside of my housing contract) that pows are illegal on base excepting for people with on base housing having them in their povs going straight home or leaving base. Only on one base have I ever seen a sign at the gate prohibiting firearms. It wouldn't have stopped that idjit anyway but the DoD DOES HAVE REGS already, they don't bother to publish/enforce them. But as we all know, criminals care less about what is legal anyway
Even with this shooting so close to me and having to go through extra security here while the SOB was at B.A.M.C. I still feel very very safe on base as opposed to off base places. It is just a giant pain to have to lock it in the trunk then find some place to pull over and retrieve it or lock it back up when entering/exiting base.
I currently live on base and to say I wasn't happy to have to REGISTER my guns with them would be an understatement. However, I did clearly understand when I read and signed my housing agreement that in order to keep pows (weapons not prisoners ha ha) in my quarters I would have to register them with the provost marshal, and understand that I could only have them in my pov when I was going directly from my quarters off post or visa versa.
This is all an unfortunate knee jerk reaction to the Ft Hood shooting in that the shooter didn't even live on post and while I know ignorance of the law is no excuse, never once in my 19 years and counting of service have I ever been told (outside of my housing contract) that pows are illegal on base excepting for people with on base housing having them in their povs going straight home or leaving base. Only on one base have I ever seen a sign at the gate prohibiting firearms. It wouldn't have stopped that idjit anyway but the DoD DOES HAVE REGS already, they don't bother to publish/enforce them. But as we all know, criminals care less about what is legal anyway
Even with this shooting so close to me and having to go through extra security here while the SOB was at B.A.M.C. I still feel very very safe on base as opposed to off base places. It is just a giant pain to have to lock it in the trunk then find some place to pull over and retrieve it or lock it back up when entering/exiting base.