Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: Carrying onto Military Bases

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, ,
    Posts
    181

    Carrying onto Military Bases

    If the state of Texas says I can carry while traveling, why can the federal government say I can't carry onto their base. At what point does a federal edict that contravenes State law become null and void? It seems to me that these two things conflict and if parking lot storage is passed, how is that resolved when your "employer" is the federal government?

    This doesn't pass the smell test.

  2. #2
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005
    It's real simple friend. The Military Installation is not state land, it's Federal land. When you enter on to the Federal Installation you fall under federal laws and edicts. Just that simple. I am a Federal employee. I have a Kansas Concealed carry permit. I must follow the regulations set forth by the Installation commander and secure my weapon and seperate the weapon and ammunition in separate locations. I do this every day when I go to work. Not hard to understand nor comply with, just a pain.
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  3. #3
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by KansasMustang View Post
    It's real simple friend. The Military Installation is not state land, it's Federal land. When you enter on to the Federal Installation you fall under federal laws and edicts. Just that simple. I am a Federal employee. I have a Kansas Concealed carry permit. I must follow the regulations set forth by the Installation commander and secure my weapon and seperate the weapon and ammunition in separate locations. I do this every day when I go to work. Not hard to understand nor comply with, just a pain.
    Exactly.

    Ft Bragg actually makes it possible to travel through the un-gated areas (such as the through highways) to have a gun in the car as long as you don't stop and don't go through any of the active control points. Basically you can carry it in the vehicle (not in reach and unloaded) if you are passing through from Fayetteville to Spring Lake and vice versa without declaring it.

    I have an odd feeling that this will be repealed once the by-pass is complete as it will no longer be needed.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I think it is incredibly foolish to universally bar otherwise lawful carry on a military installation. Had soldiers been allowed to carry, Ft. Hood would have several fewer dead soldiers and one more thoroughly riddled and dead terrorist.

    That being said, I don't for a second question the lawful authority of the military to ban carry on their installations. Bases are secure areas to which the public is not generally invited. The military has the absolute authority to set the rules for determining who will be invited and under what circumstances.

    That being said, a more reasonable policy would be to allow folks who can carry off-base to carry in the open areas on base (i.e. where there is no additional gate that is always or sometimes guarded by an armed person). But this would be a policy decision, not a rights decision.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Chap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Greenville, MS
    Posts
    213
    Yep,

    I also wish my MS, FireArms Permit & (soon to be) Retirement Id as a W4 with 30 yrs faithful service could be sufficient. Plus my multiple Federal back ground checks during those 30 yrs, military weapons & range training. The State Polices background check stating I was safe to have a MS FireArms Permit. Oh and my two dogs unconditional love for me.

    I won't be holding my breath tho.

    Sounds like when I retire and travel around the US armed. I can use my two lock boxes when needed. Then declare my intentions to enter the base at the gate. After which follow each bases directions for properly securing of weapons. Leave in locked boxes or proceed to armory. (what ever makes the base Commander feel safe about my being allowed on base)

    Yep I sure wish there was at the very least one standard policy for retired military veterans.

    Sent from Chap's iPhone
    Kimber Ultra Carry II .45 ACP, 3" barrel 1911 with a Mitch Rosen holster

    New additions to the family -
    XDm .45 ACP 02FEB11,
    Ruger LCP .380 05FEB11

  6. #6
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I think it is incredibly foolish to universally bar otherwise lawful carry on a military installation. Had soldiers been allowed to carry, Ft. Hood would have several fewer dead soldiers and one more thoroughly riddled and dead terrorist.

    That being said, I don't for a second question the lawful authority of the military to ban carry on their installations. Bases are secure areas to which the public is not generally invited. The military has the absolute authority to set the rules for determining who will be invited and under what circumstances.

    That being said, a more reasonable policy would be to allow folks who can carry off-base to carry in the open areas on base (i.e. where there is no additional gate that is always or sometimes guarded by an armed person). But this would be a policy decision, not a rights decision.
    I agree 100%

    As well with Ft Hood, Ft Bragg has had incidents in the past 20 years which I am sure would have turned out differently had Soldiers been allowed to openly carry.

    The incident at Ft Hood was the last one to bring to idea to the table, yet it has had the opposite effect, as do seemingly all incidents. It appears that the military is more wiling to tighten the noose on it's members rather than to offer more options for their protection.

    I do feel that a few Post Commanders probably feel the same as us yet are unwilling to face the debate and public backlash that would surely ensue if they were to make the decision to allow for open carry on their posts. That's is speculation on my part, however, and can point to no direct link to prove it.
    Last edited by rotorhead; 04-02-2011 at 09:49 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    To ALL Posts on This Thread:

    I Agree with eye95!

    How in The World did Our Military get 'Out-Gunned' on OUR Own Military Base?

    aadvark

  8. #8
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Lenexa, Kansas
    Posts
    423
    I would have to agree that allowing to carry on a military installation would be great, except you got to understand base security and safety of the people on the base. Whole point is to keep the base under control to avoid any situations. But then again we can argue both sides. I used to be Active Duty Air Force by the way.
    Nothing better than a Glock.........except maybe another Glock!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    33
    I know on several Navy bases (Active duty Navy here) NO form of gun possession is allowed on base...at all! Can't have it locked with ammo seperate or anything...just aren't allowed to have it! This is not a good idea because a LOT of Navy bases are now in bad neighborhoods. Not because of the base itself..but just because really old neighborhoods tend to either be bad..or to be 'revitilized' and since the majority of Navy bases are from when towns/cities were first really getting going, they are often times in the oldest neighborhood and where the average person wouldn't go walking at night.

    Out at Bangor Sub base you used to be able to go through once with a check in at the Armory, then after that declare it and have the ammo seperate and you were good to go...not sure how that is now as I haven't been stationed there in over 3 years.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    Just for the sake of argument

    How about
    Title 18 § 930.
    Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities.

    I know the same limitations are prescribed in my locality but what about paragraph 3 with regard to "other lawful purposes"? Security forces seem to fall under paragraph 1. What is a lawful purpose? My ball point pen could be considered a dangerous weapon if employed as a defense.

    (a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
    (b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall
    be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
    (c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
    (d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
    (1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
    (2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
    (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
    (e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
    (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).
    (f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.
    (g) As used in this section: (1) The term ‘‘Federal facility’’ means a
    building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
    (2) The term ‘‘dangerous weapon’’ means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 21⁄2 inches in length.

    ~Whitney
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by DWCook View Post
    I would have to agree that allowing to carry on a military installation would be great, except you got to understand base security and safety of the people on the base. Whole point is to keep the base under control to avoid any situations. But then again we can argue both sides. I used to be Active Duty Air Force by the way.
    At which point how do explain things like ft hood? Yes we need to have base security, but that is the point of the fences and gate guards/security forces. But short of checking every vehicle at the gate you simply can't ensure 100% compliance and so I see no reason not to allow military members (note that I'm not including civilians in this) to carry in order to better protect the base. And if the military is so scared of "untrained" people doing this then they could make a cbt covering it! I kid...mostly. they could have some training that any military member could sign up for, similar to motorcycle riding on base, gov license, flightline driving, etc.

    And if someone was going to attack the base then the rules won't stop or even slow him (unless he gets hit with a RAM coming through the gate, which is extremely unlikely). So at least this way there would be more people armed to help with base security should something happen.

    Personally I am active duty air force and think it would be fine with the proper system. It would need to be flexible enough to also allow commanders the ability to take away the ability to carry should someone be "unsuited" to do so (talking things like suicide watch, other than honorable discharge, etc), but not so much power to arbitrarily restrict it. Oh and I hate how I have to go home after work to be able to arm myself. So now I get to drive off base unarmed to retrieve my firearm ( not that i expect something to happen during the drive, but that's not the point), and heaven forbid if you live on-base and want to carry when you go off-base.

    EDIT: Also I would like to point out that plenty of military members already carry either a knife or multi-tool that has a blade and this is perfectly acceptable. And it isn't too uncommon for the blade to be 3-4 inches. So it isn't like we aren't already carrying what could be classified a deadly weapon.
    Last edited by Aknazer; 04-06-2011 at 12:13 AM.

  12. #12
    Activist Member golddigger14s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,990

    Bases

    Here at Ft. Lewis, WA they have gun ranges for military and civillians to shoot at. Once your done shooting the guns have to be cased back up and the ammo seperated. At least they changed the rule about registering your guns on base even if you live off post. I went to the registration place and had all my guns un-registered. (They were all lost in a tragic "boating accident". They gave me a receipt stating I have no guns registered.
    "The beauty of the Second Amenment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson
    "Evil often triumphs, but never conquers." Joseph Roux
    http://nwfood.shelfreliance.com

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by golddigger14s View Post
    Here at Ft. Lewis, WA they have gun ranges for military and civillians to shoot at. Once your done shooting the guns have to be cased back up and the ammo seperated. At least they changed the rule about registering your guns on base even if you live off post. I went to the registration place and had all my guns un-registered. (They were all lost in a tragic "boating accident". They gave me a receipt stating I have no guns registered.
    Here at Tinker AFB they supposedly don't have the manning to allow people to use the range for personal use. And at my last base (kadena AB in Japan) you couldn't bring your weapons with you at all as the armory doesn't have space and you naturally can't take them off base overseas.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitney View Post
    How about
    Title 18 § 930.
    Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities.

    I know the same limitations are prescribed in my locality but what about paragraph 3 with regard to "other lawful purposes"? Security forces seem to fall under paragraph 1. What is a lawful purpose? My ball point pen could be considered a dangerous weapon if employed as a defense.

    (a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
    (b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall
    be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
    (c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
    (d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
    (1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
    (2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
    (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
    (e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
    (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).
    (f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.
    (g) As used in this section: (1) The term ‘‘Federal facility’’ means a
    building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
    (2) The term ‘‘dangerous weapon’’ means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 21⁄2 inches in length.

    ~Whitney
    That is the codified gun control act. Remember section 101 says that carry for personal protection is a purpose that is lawful.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  15. #15
    Regular Member Sc0tt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Asheboro, NC
    Posts
    315
    IMO most state laws allready ban carring in a federal building or on federal property which a millitary base most defintly is. It says you can secure a weapon in your car but I dont think its legal if your car is on federal property and outside the jurisdiction of the sate laws.
    -----------------
    --SCOTT

    Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum

    "A government that is big enough to give you everything you need is beg enough to take everything you have, the course of history shows that as government incresses - liberty decreases."


    LEGAL NOTICE: I am not a lawyer, no content in the above post should considered legal advice

  16. #16
    Regular Member Thos.Jefferson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    just south of the river, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    288

    What's the debate?

    What's to debate here? This law is un-Constitutional at it's very core. The federal government has no power granted to it by the Constitution to restrict the carry of Arms PERIOD! As a matter of fact I seem to recall an Amendment to the Constitution that strictly PROHIBITS any such restriction. Hmmmm.................
    He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent which will reach to himself. -- Thomas Paine (1737--1809), Dissertation on First Principles of Government, 1795

  17. #17
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by Thos.Jefferson View Post
    What's to debate here? This law is un-Constitutional at it's very core. The federal government has no power granted to it by the Constitution to restrict the carry of Arms PERIOD! As a matter of fact I seem to recall an Amendment to the Constitution that strictly PROHIBITS any such restriction. Hmmmm.................
    I can't begin to find a decent argument against this post. Perfect in it's simplicity and true to boot.

    The problem is, uniformed guards will still chase you down if you try to enter a military facility with guns, regardless of the Constitutional protections afforded us. You wouldn't think that any federal law or code written by a lower authority than the Constitution would have more power behind it, but that's what we face these days.

    One of these days someone needs to settle all this gun junk concerning laws once and for all.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1

    Not all military bases are owned by the federal government. Some are leased.

    Quote Originally Posted by KansasMustang View Post
    It's real simple friend. The Military Installation is not state land, it's Federal land. When you enter on to the Federal Installation you fall under federal laws and edicts. Just that simple. I am a Federal employee.
    .
    Friend it is not that simple. Not all military bases are OWNED by the federal government. Some are leased. Sorry, but just because you are or were a Federal employee does not make you entirely knowledgeable of the subject. You can Google for each base to determine whether it is owned by the federal government or leased. I too am a retired Federal employee.

  19. #19
    Regular Member J1MB0B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by golddigger14s View Post
    Here at Ft. Lewis, WA they have gun ranges for military and civillians to shoot at. Once your done shooting the guns have to be cased back up and the ammo seperated. At least they changed the rule about registering your guns on base even if you live off post. I went to the registration place and had all my guns un-registered. (They were all lost in a tragic "boating accident". They gave me a receipt stating I have no guns registered.
    This is not true. If you sell or lose or have stolen a weapon that is registered on Ft Lewis,they will make a note as such in the computer. Even when you fill out a new registration form and leave a gun off, they ask you why you left it off and make a note in the system. Just because its not on your form doent mean its not associated with your name. The only way to "un-register" a weapon from the Ft Lewis database is to clear the post.
    I have been stationed on Ft Lewis off and on since 1998, and I have never seen a requirment to register your weapons on post if you dont live on post unless you plan on bringing them on. After Ft Hood there was rumors about them making this policy, but those were just rumors, it never happened.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Thos.Jefferson View Post
    What's to debate here? This law is un-Constitutional at it's very core. The federal government has no power granted to it by the Constitution to restrict the carry of Arms PERIOD! As a matter of fact I seem to recall an Amendment to the Constitution that strictly PROHIBITS any such restriction. Hmmmm.................
    So there is absolutely no restrictions on the freedom of speech. I can legally make false claims against you even if they hurt you financially or in some other way for example. That is what you are saying.

    For you to say I am not allowed to carry in your house, even if you do not trust me, would be you infringing on my right to carry. No store owner has the right to how they do business is what you are saying. They can not limit you for carrying. I guess that also means they must let people in nude because that would infringe on their freedom of speech because they are expressing themselves by being nude?

    There are limits to a few of the Amendments if you think about it. Actually, in ways there are limits to almost every one of them if they can hurt someone if taken too far.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Carrying onto Military Bases

    The federal government can reasonably restrict any activity in a secure area. They can restrict entry and set conditions on entry.

    The problem is that they take this authority way too far. In the "open" areas of installations (you still generally have to get past a guard, and the area is considered secure to a degree), such as exchanges, hobby shops, housing areas, etc., the commander should adopt local laws or, at most, add a requirement to get a base license. However, in other than open areas (such as flight lines, SP armories, etc.), it is reasonable and prudent to deny access to folks who are armed except for those designated to be armed to secure the areas.

    Once you accept the reasonability of there being some secure areas where routine carry should be denied, then the question becomes where to draw the line on these areas. Currently, those lines are drawn way too liberally--and foolishly (e.g. Fort Hood).


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    113
    I'm curious, do people think that the military should issue the weapons out to everybody each day or on a perm basis? While in uniform, the only acceptable weapons to use are ones issued by the gov after all. That is part of multiple agreements, treaties, and regulations. I personally don't see that as being reasonable to do each day or on a perm basis. There are enough problems with people being stupid to be honest. The military works hard and plays hard, and that playing hard could have problems if weapons are there all the time. I also understand that the majority would be ok, but just as with the police, it only takes a few bad apples. The military has a hard enough time with their rep in many ways. Also, if the military isn't issued their weapons daily or on a perm basis, why should everybody else be allowed to be armed instead? Now it's a security problem for the military to have so many non-military running around armed. Again, there are enough problems and situations out there. I'm kind of shocked there have not been more shootings on bases to be honest. It's not like they search every vehicle normally.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Birmingham, Alabama - ROLL TIDE!!
    Posts
    2
    When speaking about the military, you have to remember: Military members fall under the UCMJ ONLY! You're life changes the second you're on contract with the US gov't. You no longer fall under "civilian" control and as such, you are not afforded the same rights with that uniform on (or off). I did 6 1/2 years AD-USAF & my ex-wife was SP. I asked these lovely questions because I didn't quite get the "point" of the statute but as explained to me, Uncle Sam owns yo ass lol. I don't agree with it by any means but at least its understood why we cant/couldnt.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I did 20 years in the USAF. I know the UCMJ and how it affects military members.

    However, there are more non-military on almost every military installation in the US than there are military. Those non-military are subject to the overly-strident anti-firearm rules while not being subject to the UCMJ. Worse, since no provisions are made for weapons an individual might be carrying just prior to entering the installation, those individuals are essentially disarmed from the moment they leave their homes until they return at the end of the day if the day's activities include so much as a minute on base.

    I know because I am a USAF retiree who works as a civilian on base. My RKBA has been essentially denied me by ridiculous regulations.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Birmingham, Alabama - ROLL TIDE!!
    Posts
    2
    Oh I don't refute what you said one bit. I think the regs need to accommodate military civil service at the VERY least. I don't think it will ever happen b/c the SP/CC has to be accountable for all of the firearms on the installation & if he/she doesn't know about them, their ability to "regulate" and "enforce" becomes moot. I think that has more to do with it than anything else. Plus people on the outside would cry little little babies if it ever happened. I guess they don't trust those of us who have security clearances with firearms but they'll trust us with potentially crippling document & information? Something just isn't right about that picture.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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