Can military bases discriminate?

SFCRetired said:

As a retired NCO, my first call would have been not to the Provost Marshal, but to the Post Command Sergeant Major. It has been my experience that, should you want a knot jerked in someone's tail, Sergeant Majors are the folks to see. I've seen them quietly and politely chew a brigadier general's biblical beast of burden.

My two cents' worth: the gate guard was confused/improperly briefed on post regs.

Click to expand...

I'm a retired Army MP and I agree with the above. You could also call the MP Desk Sergeant. He/She should and likely will know all the ins and outs of the post policies and have the ability to jerk said knot when it needs jerking. At least I did when I was a Desk Sgt in Bamberg Germany many years ago.

SFCRetired said:

As a retired NCO, my first call would have been not to the Provost Marshal, but to the Post Command Sergeant Major. It has been my experience that, should you want a knot jerked in someone's tail, Sergeant Majors are the folks to see. I've seen them quietly and politely chew a brigadier general's biblical beast of burden.

My two cents' worth: the gate guard was confused/improperly briefed on post regs.

Click to expand...

Nobody with ANY brains jerks the CSM's chain without a LOT of oomph to back them up.

"Msgt. Schneider,

I'll begin by expressing my apologies to yourself and your brother at the East Gate with *****. Joint Base Lewis-McChord does have a breed restrictions, with pitbull breeds being included with that restrictions. However, our policy follows the guidelines of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and we must honor all animals on base that are used with those with a disability. The A.D.A. guidelines state that service animals are not required to be registered or certified. The A.D.A. provides greater protection for individuals with disabilities and so it takes priority over the local or state laws or regulations. Considering the A.D.A. is a Federal Organization, the policies are applied across the nation. A good rule of thumb says that if you are legally allowed on the premises within the perimeters of any public or private establishment, then your service dog must be allowed to accompany you. I will be sure to take initiative to inform our post guards of this policy, as it is not something that we regularly deal with. Proper measures will be taken to ensure you that this will not happen in the future.
Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I wish you and your family the best."




(I have blocked out the names and titles for respect to their privacy)

Good.

(While his intent and the content are laudable, his letter could've stood some better editing.)

eye95 said:

Good.

(While his intent and the content are laudable, his letter could've stood some better editing.)

Click to expand...

I was surprised to see it as one huge paragraph. Glad he got a response. My dad forwarded it to me this morning.

It was most likely some clerk who drafted it and brought it in to the person to be signed in a hurry to send it out anyway.

The intent is there though, that's what matters.

Jblm

I am in the Army stationed at Lewis, and just got off the phone with th MP's. The said Pits, chows, wolfs, and a few others are indeed prohibited. I explained about the fact it was an aid dog, and he of course could not comment about this particular incident. I gave him my e-mail, and he said he would research the police and e-mail me the policy. Once I get something in writing I will post it.

Response

Latest Response:
The only documentation we have regarding restricted animals, is a memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army. The memo does refer to pitbulls being banned from housing on the installation. It does not provide any exemptions for medical assist animals. You are more than welcome to stop by the PMO and ask for a copy of the memorandum.

While the ADA says they can't discriminate against people who are authorized access to the installation (nor their service animals), the installation commander can simply restrict access.

If we're getting opposing statements from those in authority on base, I truly wonder if it's a legitimate policy, or it's too much of a gray area to know for sure. It bothers me that someone else in authority has referenced a source that says there are no exceptions. I'll ask my dad for more specifics on the others he spoke with earlier. If there are exceptions, this may be something that needs to be revised or preempted by U.S. Congress.

KBCraig said:

While the ADA says they can't discriminate against people who are authorized access to the installation (nor their service animals), the installation commander can simply restrict access.

Click to expand...

This sounds like it may be a loophole.

Aaron1124 said:

This sounds like it may be a loophole.

Click to expand...

Not really. They cannot restrict access based on handicap. The ADA is structured to make denial of access by service animals denial of access to the disabled person using the animal.

If the policy does indeed ban pit bulls that are service animals, the policy is illegal. It is analogous to an unconstitutional law. It may be on the books. Folks may try to enforce it. It still is illegal and won't survive a legal challenge.

Also, there is the potential to "pierce immunity" in a civil lawsuit. And, juries show lots of love to those have been dealt a bad hand ability-wise.

golddigger14s said:

Latest Response:
The memo does refer to pitbulls being banned from housing on the installation. It does not provide any exemptions for medical assist animals.

Click to expand...

Still sounds like this was a misunderstanding on the MP's part. The military may have a rule prohibiting military members from keeping certain animals in base housing, but I seriously doubt that the rule applies to medical assist animals belonging to base visitors and retirees.

eye95 said:

I have read. A lot.

I see just as much support from pit bull advocates saying that there is essentially no difference in danger between breeds as I see from those who claim that pit bulls are inherently more dangerous.

The point is, regardless of where one falls in this debate, why use an animal with a bad rep (justified or not), when there are so many other breeds without the rep?

A judge I know says that the dog bite cases she sees are almost exclusively the breeds that have bad reps. She attributes it to the temperaments of the breeds as well the abilities of these breeds to do much more damage than the typical dog.

I come down on the side that says pit bulls are unnecessarily dangerous. However, I respect the right of folks to own dangerous things. They just need to be willing to accept responsibility for bad things that happen.

But, again, my remark was solely in regards to the wisdom of having a service animal that has a rep of being dangerous, when there are so many other animals as well suited, or likely better suited, to the task.

Click to expand...

Small dogs who bite go unreported. A pit bull who barks has animal control called on it as being dangerous.

Has everything to do with how the dog is raised, and breed bias.

<- Has owned nothing BUT American Staffordshire Terriers.


Every last one of my dogs would be more likely to lick you to death.

They are extremely intelligent, extremely social, extremely protective, and can get into trouble if not allowed to exercise or socialize properly.

TechnoWeenie said:

Small dogs who bite go unreported. A pit bull who barks has animal control called on it as being dangerous.

Has everything to do with how the dog is raised, and breed bias.

<- Has owned nothing BUT American Staffordshire Terriers.


Every last one of my dogs would be more likely to lick you to death.

They are extremely intelligent, extremely social, extremely protective, and can get into trouble if not allowed to exercise or socialize properly.

Click to expand...

The Dangers of pit bulls is just a myth, they don't lock their jaws, they are not more likely to bite as other dogs.

But just like guns kill less kids than swimming pools which one makes the news.

As far as I know...and I've worked for the Army for nearly 15 years...and am a Navy vet, the Post Commander has the final say in who has access to his/her post...and that is based on a NEED to be on that post. The ADA deals basically with employment based on a disability, and publicly accessible buildings and facilities...a military base not being publicly accessible. If your uncle had no NEED to be on the post...ie an appointment at the medical center or reporting for work, and was just a visitor, then his entrance can be restricted for whatever reason the Post Commander sees fit.

TechnoWeenie said:

Small dogs who bite go unreported. Whether or not a bite is reported is a function of severity of the bite. A pit bull who barks has animal control called on it as being dangerous. Do you have any citations to back up this assertion? I have no reason to believe that pit bull barking is complained about with any greater frequency or dealt with any more harshly than any other breed barking.

Has everything to do with how the dog is raised, and breed bias. As I pointed out earlier, "dangerous" breeds do prompt a disproportionate number of civil cases from attacks. There is no reason to believe that this is due to breed bias. The only reasonable explanation is disproportion in numbers and severity of attacks.

<- Has owned nothing BUT American Staffordshire Terriers.


Every last one of my dogs would be more likely to lick you to death.

They are extremely intelligent, extremely social, extremely protective, and can get into trouble if not allowed to exercise or socialize properly.

Click to expand...

I responded to some of your assertions in blue.

fully_armed_biker said:

As far as I know...and I've worked for the Army for nearly 15 years...and am a Navy vet, the Post Commander has the final say in who has access to his/her post...and that is based on a NEED to be on that post. The ADA deals basically with employment based on a disability, and publicly accessible buildings and facilities...a military base not being publicly accessible. If your uncle had no NEED to be on the post...ie an appointment at the medical center or reporting for work, and was just a visitor, then his entrance can be restricted for whatever reason the Post Commander sees fit.

Click to expand...

The logical extension of this argument is that the installation commander can deny entrance to a person based on race.

Of course he can't. Federal law will stop him from doing that. Just as federal law (the ADA) would stop him from denying entry to a person who needs a service animal because of the service animal.

It may take a lawsuit to establish this principle on paper, however it is already true.

Not even worth arguing...as we've all come to know, you opinion is the only one that matters...

MOVING ON!!!

That was a useful post that really added to the discussion.

Care to take issue with the point that my post made?