• 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.

Access to Military Bases if any

golddigger14s

Activist Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,068
Location
Lawton, OK USA
Bases

I'm about to retire up here at Fort Lewis, WA. Up here if you live off post you don't need to register the weapon on post, but you need to have the weapon in a case and the ammo separate. Also you are only supposed to be going to the range for practice with no stops (PX etc.) before or after. Not quite sure about someone traveling.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
They do... its called an AF form 523.

Is that the permit issued by the base commander, good only on his base, and dang-near impossible to get? If so, that is not what I am talking about.

I am talking about a license good on all military installations, regardless of wacko State laws.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Is that the permit issued by the base commander, good only on his base, and dang-near impossible to get? If so, that is not what I am talking about.

I am talking about a license good on all military installations, regardless of wacko State laws.

Peterson and Schriever AFBs use the form if you want to bring a weapon on base because you are going shooting at lunchtime or after work. Signed by your CC and SFS/CC and easy to get. Otherwise, weapons are prohibited. To the best of my knowledge, this applies to all AF bases. If there is an armory, you can store your weapon there, as I did at Pete when I first got out here. No problem, tell the SP at the gate that's what you want to do. He checks that weapon is unloaded and ammo stored separately. Ammo may be kept on base in VOQ or your car. Spent 10 minutes chatting with the TSgt NCOIC about .45 v 9mm when I brought mine (P-90) to the armory. Pete has a trap/skeet range so many shotguns brought on base.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Peterson and Schriever AFBs use the form if you want to bring a weapon on base because you are going shooting at lunchtime or after work. Signed by your CC and SFS/CC and easy to get. Otherwise, weapons are prohibited. To the best of my knowledge, this applies to all AF bases. If there is an armory, you can store your weapon there, as I did at Pete when I first got out here. No problem, tell the SP at the gate that's what you want to do. He checks that weapon is unloaded and ammo stored separately. Ammo may be kept on base in VOQ or your car. Spent 10 minutes chatting with the TSgt NCOIC about .45 v 9mm when I brought mine (P-90) to the armory. Pete has a trap/skeet range so many shotguns brought on base.

It does not apply to all AF bases. Maxwell can issue a concealed carry permit, but generally doesn't. I don't know of a single one issued. They won't even talk about it. If you call about it, you get a run-around.

That is why I am asking if someone can cite this reported cross-service policy on firearms. A lot of folks are talking about how things are at "all bases," but no one is producing cites. AFIK, right now, there is a patch-work of policies, and one has to check local policies for each and every installation they intend to visit.
 

Shovelhead

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
315
Location
NO VA, ,
visiting military bases

Advice, Don't visit any bases IN Washington DC.
DC and the bases residing within its borders take a REAL dim view of firearms and ammunition.
On Bolling AFB I watched an individual being arrested for having a brick of .22 rimfire ammo in his glovebox (random vehicle search).
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
It does not apply to all AF bases. Maxwell can issue a concealed carry permit, but generally doesn't. I don't know of a single one issued. They won't even talk about it. If you call about it, you get a run-around.

That is why I am asking if someone can cite this reported cross-service policy on firearms. A lot of folks are talking about how things are at "all bases," but no one is producing cites. AFIK, right now, there is a patch-work of policies, and one has to check local policies for each and every installation they intend to visit.

Asked an OSI friend about CCWs being possible on base, and he said only OSI and Det 7 carry concealed. If other Feds want to CC on base they need permission from VC and SFS. This would include NCIS and Army equivalent.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
Cite? I'd really like to read whatever the standard regulation is.

I remember that effort being made. I don't remember it being completed, or, if it has been, what the outcome was. Therefore, if someone is aware of the cross-service regulation, I'd appreciate it if it were cited.
I'll try to find it. I had it bookmarked at one time, but I've changed computers since then.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
I'll try to find it. I had it bookmarked at one time, but I've changed computers since then.
Here's an indirect reference to the DoD-wide policy change. Sorry, it's an image PDF, so I can't copy the text.

http://www.defense.gov/news/d20100820FortHoodFollowon.pdf

See "Recommendation 3.8" on page 26.

Here's the referenced interim guidance incorporated as Change Notice 1 to 5200.08; it's short on specifics, but basically says "we're taking over from all local policy".

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520008p.pdf
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Here's an indirect reference to the DoD-wide policy change. Sorry, it's an image PDF, so I can't copy the text.

http://www.defense.gov/news/d20100820FortHoodFollowon.pdf

See "Recommendation 3.8" on page 26.

Here's the referenced interim guidance incorporated as Change Notice 1 to 5200.08; it's short on specifics, but basically says "we're taking over from all local policy".

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520008p.pdf

I cannot find, within your references, any department-wide policy on the carry of personal firearms. Your first reference has an action item to formulate a department-wide policy on privately-owned weapons (nice acronym: POW!), but this action item seems to remain incomplete.

So, as of today, it seems that we still have a patch-work of policies. Anyone relying on a policy from one installation is likely to get himself into trouble at another. One policy for all installations would be better than a patch-work. However, it will likely be more restrictive than they typical current policy.
 

Bowers

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
46
Location
Grand Forks, North Dakota, USA
Since I live close to Grand Forks AFB, I think I'm going to inquire and see if the commander there has a similar policy as far as allowing concealed guns. Anyone have an idea as to who I should direct the call too? Maybe the secretary of the commander?
 

Chap

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
213
Location
Greenville, MS
Please ask about just transporting on base

Since I live close to Grand Forks AFB, I think I'm going to inquire and see if the commander there has a similar policy as far as allowing concealed guns. Anyone have an idea as to who I should direct the call too? Maybe the secretary of the commander?

Bowers thanks for taking the time to look into this issue. I'd be interested in how a person who is traveling across the US with a legal weapon and State issued permit is expected to interact with base security?

Is there a Nationwide policy?

Is a Nationwide policy in the works?

KansasMustang
Mentioned on a previous post on how to deal with his base. See if the gate guard agrees with KansasMustang's procedure. I'm sure the gate guard would be able to direct you to someone for follow up questions.
 

Bowers

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
46
Location
Grand Forks, North Dakota, USA
Well, I just called Public Affairs, they transfered me to SF, and they said no, Grand Forks does not have a similar policy on honoring CCW's. And if you want to take a weapon onto base, you have to fill out an Air Force Form 1314 (if I remember the number correctly) and that has to be approved by the commander. It's just a form saying you want to keep a weapon in the armory. You need a seperate form for each weapon. Then, once that's approved, you can go on base. When you enter base, you need to go directly to the armory, (and wait for an armorer, if there's not one there) and register/surrender the weapon to him. When you're ready to leave, go back, and he will issue it back to you. Then I would assume you proceed directly off base.

So sadly, no concealing on Grand Forks AFB. And it seems like a hassle to put a weapon in the armory. So I'll continue to do what I normaly do. Make the Base a seperate trip on it's own, with no weapons.
 
Last edited:

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
Here's an indirect reference to the DoD-wide policy change. Sorry, it's an image PDF, so I can't copy the text.

http://www.defense.gov/news/d20100820FortHoodFollowon.pdf
I cannot find, within your references, any department-wide policy on the carry of personal firearms. Your first reference has an action item to formulate a department-wide policy on privately-owned weapons (nice acronym: POW!), but this action item seems to remain incomplete.
You're correct. I mis-spoke, or spoke too quickly. I erred in relying on my memory of news reports about what the Secretary of Defense said, instead of first seeking the original source.

Those news reports said SecDef ordered a homogenized policy for personally owned weapons. From Gates' cover letter at the URL above, second paragraph: "I...am directing that the Department respond...by taking appropriate action, as specified in the attached final report of the DoD Follow-on Review to the Fort Hood incident."

In other words, SecDef has ordered that the review recommendations, including "Recommendation 3.8: Review the Need for a DoD Privately Owned Weapons Policy", be implemented as quickly as possible.

The bulleted response to that recommendation:
The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence put into formal coordination a Secretary-issued Department-wide Interim Guidance Message. By early 2011, the interim guidance will be incorporated into a revision of DoD 5200.08-R (Physical Security Program).
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Here's an indirect reference to the DoD-wide policy change. Sorry, it's an image PDF, so I can't copy the text.

http://www.defense.gov/news/d20100820FortHoodFollowon.pdf

See "Recommendation 3.8" on page 26.

Here's the referenced interim guidance incorporated as Change Notice 1 to 5200.08; it's short on specifics, but basically says "we're taking over from all local policy".

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520008p.pdf

Good find, KBCraig. Recommendation 3.8 is on page 13, though, and states: "The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence has put into forml coordination a Secretary-issued Department-wide Interim Guidance Message. By early 2011, the interim guidance will be incorporated into a revision of DoD 5200.08-R (Physical Security Program)."

I did not get the impression they're "taking over from all local policy," however. What I got is that they reserve the right to do so, but installation commanders themselves continue to have the stick for setting local policy.

I would argue that we already have a policy: "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Sounds pretty clear to me.
 
Last edited:

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
I did not get the impression they're "taking over from all local policy," however. What I got is that they reserve the right to do so, but installation commanders themselves continue to have the stick for setting local policy.

I would argue that we already have a policy: "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Sounds pretty clear to me.
Sounds perfectly clear to me!

Sadly, if that clarity was widely accepted, we wouldn't be discussing any of these cases that clearly are "infringement".
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Sounds perfectly clear to me!

Sadly, if that clarity was widely accepted, we wouldn't be discussing any of these cases that clearly are "infringement".

I agree! It's because so many of the laws in our country are so ridiculously convoluted that discussions like this are necessary.

Our Founders weren't perfect, hence the need for Amendments. I think one of those Amendments should have been, "Congress, as well as each state in the union, may pass no more than three laws each fiscal year, but they may repeal as many laws as are necessary for the efficient and effective governing of our nation and states."

I say this only partly in jest... Perhaps if we adjust the number upwards a bit. What would you think might be appropriate? Ten?
 
Top