My letter to the Base Armory

Don't the people making the policies that end up restricting rights ALSO take an oath to SUPPORT and defend the constitution? Wether it be an officer or a politician? Could that be grounds for challenging policies that restrict rights as unlawful orders since it could be construed that the person creating it violated the oath?

Schlitz said:

Don't the people making the policies that end up restricting rights ALSO take an oath to SUPPORT and defend the constitution? Wether it be an officer or a politician? Could that be grounds for challenging policies that restrict rights as unlawful orders since it could be construed that the person creating it violated the oath?

Click to expand...

One of your natural rights is the right to enter into a contract, which, by definition, will be an agreement to do certain things and not do certain things. The nature of a contract is the voluntary agreement to abridge your own right to act.

To create an effective military organization, some rights must be given up. I don't believe that the RKBA should be completely eliminated, but I understand that the decision of who is armed, with what, when, and where has to belong ultimately to the commanders. However, that they have the natural (and legislated) authority to make such decisions does not mean that those decisions have been made wisely nor that the commanders cannot leave some of that decision-making in the hands of the troops themselves.

OC for ME said:

I seem to recall that SCOTUS has ruled that service members have fewer rights than civilians to maintain good order and discipline. SCOTUS has recognized that military service by its very nature requires a restriction on your constitutional rights as approved by Congress. SCOTUS will defer to Congress to address any constitutional rights and their exercise while a person is serving. This does not mean that you have no rights, just that the services can restrict the exercising of your rights as they deem necessary.

Click to expand...

And just how does restricting one's ability to carry on-base (or in the case of the Alaska report, even off-base) help maintain good order and discipline? One could reasonably argue that a flat out ban doesn't and that the base simply needs to implement proper training. You could even take it further and say that it can negatively affect order and discipline as it restricts military members from being able to directly and effectively intervene in a situation that happens in front of them (such as the Ft. Hood shootings).

The issue in these types of orders is the vagueness of "maintain good order and discipline" combined with the view by many that you simply can't question what a "superior" says (though that type of a mindset can easily lead one into trouble should an order be unlawful). The next issue is in changing the views of those who have the power to stop this type of abuse. If they view it as an appropriate "safety" issue then chances are they won't put a stop to it even if it is unlawful.

Oh and Since9, I was only talking about the issues I would have in bringing a personal weapon on a TDY. Bringing military issued weapons onto the jet wouldn't be an issue and depending on the theater we do fly with them (but not on training sorties).

What possibly erks me the most is that it doesn't stop at the front gate. I can't even carry on my way to and from work because it can't be in my car. (This isn't talking TDY, this is just being home, driving to work daily) So my 2A stops at my home.

I've mentioned it before, I've had to stop at red lights in some real ghetto areas at 0200 in the morning driving home. I remember a few months ago stopping at a light at 2 in the morning while every cop in town was across the road at a murder scene taking their pictures and all that good stuff. It pisses me off that I choose to serve yet they throw me on night shift and when I have to drive home through the ghetto all I have is "good luck.".. O_O My fellow airmen and I are somehow safer with me driving home at 2 am by murder scenese in the ghetto disarmed. It's like they secretly don't care about me or my family.

EDIT:
I carry an ASP in my car now for the very few times I've HAD to stop for gas in the more ghetto areas at night. (I do avoid stopping there, it's only been a few times) Hopefully my metal stick can protect me from what ever the hoodlems are packing, thanks Uncle Sam!!! Though it doesn't do me much good if someone pulls a gun on me at a red light or any other unthought of situation.

eye95 said:

That is similar to how I feel. The services and the commanders have the lawful authority to deny carry on their installations. It is a stupid thing to do, and the policy should be changed. If the military leaders thought the matter through rationally, they would change that policy.

Click to expand...

Places like the DC area are a cluster. You have so many military bases in the area you could have troops living in VA that work at Belvoir the Pentagon etc that could be sitting next to each other off base anywhere and have different rules from their commanders. Whats also funny about it is all the Brady anti groups say that a person that wants to carry should have training. UMMM Basic counted as my training and my Honorable Discharge was all I needed to show to get my permit. I remember in basic during the training the combat arms people all had sidearms and it was explained to us if that M-16 comes pointed anywhere near another person they will shoot you. Cant think of too many other training classes that make that strong of a point about weapon handling and safety.

I don't see how that related to my post which simply discussed commanders' policies on base.

*shrugs*

eye95 said:

I don't see how that related to my post which simply discussed commanders' policies on base.

*shrugs*

Click to expand...

Sorry missed the on base. Some commanders are making policies for off as well as on.

OC for ME said:

It is unfortunate the those that are led do not get to define what "good order and disciplne" is. Since they do not, and for the forseeable future it appears that they will not get to define GOAD, it is what it is. As I stated way back in post number #18, if the OP can get the base commander to change the policy for the good, great. If not, then tough it out, then get out, if your 2A right is that important to you. It is a different day from when I was in. Not every base commander had the same personal firearms policy as some others did. I got over it and dealt with it. My service was more important to me than my 2A right. Off base, on my own time, Uncle Sam did not give a rip as long as I did not bring discredit upon the service. Your 2A right stops at the front gate if that is the policy, just as your 2A right stops at my property line.

Click to expand...

Or we can fight to get things changed. Things like writing our senators or even IG complaints can and do get base policy changed. There are other avenues open to us military members than simply going up the chain of command and letting it die should one link in the chain prove to be defective.