Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Can't Open Carry At Ft. Carson

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Can't Open Carry At Ft. Carson

    Yet another gun-free zone.

    Between Ft. Bragg, Ft. Hood, and Ft. Carson, I'm inclined to think I'm far safer while armed at my local 7-11 than I am disarmed on base.

    What part of "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does our own military continuously fail to understand? How's that working, these days? No answer? Virginia Tech, how about you?

    Gee, they're all silent on the issue...

    (armed, law-abiding American citizen walks away, shaking head at the insanity of the disarmament line of reasoning)
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Great minds think alike. I JUST posted this.

    http://www.forum.opencarry.org/forum...y&goto=newpost


    Like you said, I feel safer off base than I do on. My friends didn't get it when I was constantly checking my gun out on a TDY.
    Last edited by Schlitz; 05-24-2011 at 03:14 PM.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I feel safer on base than off. Much safer. However, "safer" is a lousy reason to disallow carry. "Safe" would be a good reason. It just isn't achievable.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."

    -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
    Last edited by zack991; 06-03-2011 at 09:16 PM.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Yeah. It was interesting having been a member of the "armed forces" while not being allowed to be armed while on base. Talk about ass-backwards thinking.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  6. #6
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Yeah. It was interesting having been a member of the "armed forces" while not being allowed to be armed while on base. Talk about ass-backwards thinking.

    That was probably a good idea at Ft. Bragg in the late 40's when my dad was there. He was a hot head who would go off on a hair. He only made corporal 3 times, started a riot and mustered out with bare sleeves.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    "Safe" would be a good reason. It just isn't achievable.
    Now, that's a good line!

    As much as we disagree on certain cases, I always give credit where it's due, and that's a good line.

  8. #8
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005
    Just sitting here wondering how to answer this thread. I work as a Dept. of The Army LEO. In other words, I carry a weapon, on the military installation. My responsibility is to protect the soldiers/families/civilians on the post. And I of course ask the same questions as do all Y'all. I cannot for the life of me understand how we can tell these soldiers that it's okay for them to carry and crew fully loaded fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers, etc. in foreign countries, but go unarmed here at home. In truth I see some of the reasoning behind it. Now let me explain before everyone goes ballistic.
    These young men and women go off to war and rain death and destruction on enemy forces. Many of them return feeling like they are invincible. Some of them have been on two and three deployments before they are 25. Most have more honor and dignity in there little finger than many civilians have in their entire being. 99.99999% would never think of hurting anyone on their home soil. I get it, honestly, I do.
    Then we have the WTB, Warrior Transition Battalion. This is where the guys and gals that are wounded, both body and soul are assigned. Some of them may never recover from the horrors they have seen and/or perceived. Some come back and for whatever reason do not admit, cannot conceive or recognize for whatever reason they might have lingering affects on their pshyche.
    I have a KS Concealed Carry Permit. In order for me to adhere to regulations I lock my unloaded CC weapon in a weapon lock box and separate the ammunition. I cannot carry it off-duty on the installation. My KS CCP means nada there. As soon as I'm off the military reservation my weapon gets loaded because I wear a badge, and a uniform. I will tell you, I feel more safe on post than off.
    Do I feel safe on the military installation? As safe as anybody can be among thousands of soldiers many of whom have been instructed in Combatives 1,2,3,4. Which means they can kill with their bare hands before you even know they're on ya. Yes, I feel safe. Because I know that there's at least 60-70 officers both MP's and DA civilians, most of whom are combat veterans themselves patrolling, and at the gates. We are trained to observe, trained to recognize behavior, trained to stop the threat. Are we human, yes. Are we infallible, no. Are we dedicated to the mission, damn right.
    Did I answer the question, probably not. so sue me.
    Last edited by KansasMustang; 06-10-2011 at 07:52 AM. Reason: typos
    ‘‘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

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Goldsboro, NC
    Posts
    160
    Before I start this rant let me be clear. I am a military member that OCs. I support the 2A and will defend it. However I support the rest of the constitution as well, and will defend that. I also understand how a few things work in the military as well as the psycological aspect of being a pissed off gun nut.

    However, I do respect people's ownership and property and will follow the rules of another man when I am in his house. So, here I go. Forgive my seplling, i'm not taking the time to proofread this. Much less the grammar.

    Rank = privledge. Get over it.

    When you join the military you give up alot of rights. And then the commanders have power over your life. In fact a commander can make it where you can't drive your motorcycle on OR off base. You are an asset to him and he can do whatever he damn well pleases to make sure he doesn't loose that asset. It sucks but it's what comes with the territory.

    As for all the other people that might want to come on base. Getting on base is not a right. It's a military instalation. They don't have to let you on base if you don't play by the rules. Don't like it go somewhere els.

    Families and spouses of the military. Most of you knew your significant other was in the military before you got married and if you didn't know what you were getting yourself into, you should have. The rules about how things work ON base apply to you. Base commander can't tell you, you can't ride a motorcycle or other (fill in the blank) policies. But when you are on base you play by the rules.

    This is what aggrivates the crap out of me when people think the military infringes on rights. You GIVE UP all that when you sign the dotted line, raise your hand, and take the oath. Congress had no say in policies in the military, saying crap like civil rights. Don't ask, Don't tell existed before for a reason, I know that reason, you don't want to hear it, trust me. But it's too late now. Civil rights are granted to the citizen. Military member, you are not citizens anymore.

    As for anyone with anything dealing with employment. Don't like it, go somewhere els. It's people like you that piss me off. New guy strolls into the job and see's something he doesn't like and is like, "Hey, they can't do that to me." and go screaming to legal or some bull crap. We were getting along just fine before you showed up. You might have gotten your way, but now no one in the office likes you. How does that make you feel? Before you answer, let me go get the rest of my work done.

    Organizations should be allowed to have policies that work for them and that be it. It's their business, it's their baby, it's their money, it's their property. They can do what they want. You are no different than a liberal trying to take guns away, when you are trying to take away the power of ownership.

    Why are gun nuts so angry, because something we cherrish and spent money on is threatend to get taken away. Why are business owners pissed off all the time when people come screaming in here and want this and that, it's because you are taking away what power they have over what they own. You are the person comming on to base, if you have a problem with it, go somewhere els. You are the person comming into my store, you got a problem with my "gun buster" sign, go somewhere els. You have a right to keep and bear arms, when you are not inside my property.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Brion View Post
    Before I start this rant let me be clear. I am a military member that OCs. I support the 2A and will defend it. However I support the rest of the constitution as well, and will defend that. I also understand how a few things work in the military as well as the psycological aspect of being a pissed off gun nut.

    However, I do respect people's ownership and property and will follow the rules of another man when I am in his house. So, here I go. Forgive my seplling, i'm not taking the time to proofread this. Much less the grammar.

    Rank = privledge. Get over it.
    BS, don't even try to pull this. Yes rank has some perks, but there's still restrictions on what one can do. This even goes for 4star generals. Hell in the Air Force Times not too long ago there was an article about an AFR general who tried to pull this crap to get his son to be a fighter pilot and has since had to resign. And to say to just "get over it" sounds more like "I outrank you, so you can't question me."

    When you join the military you give up alot of rights. And then the commanders have power over your life. In fact a commander can make it where you can't drive your motorcycle on OR off base. You are an asset to him and he can do whatever he damn well pleases to make sure he doesn't loose that asset. It sucks but it's what comes with the territory.
    And so I guess the people who wrote their congressmen about how their commanders were making them register their weapons even though the members lived off base were in the wrong and should have just bowed to the wishes of their commanders? Also one could argue that by restricting one's carry while on base in such a manner as they currently do they are actually INCREASING the chances of them losing an asset since the asset is no longer able to defend theirself on-base should there be another Ft. Hood incident or should they go anywhere off-base before retrieving their weapon from their home.

    As for all the other people that might want to come on base. Getting on base is not a right. It's a military instalation. They don't have to let you on base if you don't play by the rules. Don't like it go somewhere els.

    Families and spouses of the military. Most of you knew your significant other was in the military before you got married and if you didn't know what you were getting yourself into, you should have. The rules about how things work ON base apply to you. Base commander can't tell you, you can't ride a motorcycle or other (fill in the blank) policies. But when you are on base you play by the rules.
    And no one is saying that we shouldn't play by the rules. We simply want to see the rules changed, but will follow the rules regardless of if they change or not. Also the general public can't just come on base if they want or if they agree to "follow the rules." The only time the general public is allowed on a base is for special events and then their access to the base is very limited.

    This is what aggrivates the crap out of me when people think the military infringes on rights. You GIVE UP all that when you sign the dotted line, raise your hand, and take the oath. Congress had no say in policies in the military, saying crap like civil rights. Don't ask, Don't tell existed before for a reason, I know that reason, you don't want to hear it, trust me. But it's too late now. Civil rights are granted to the citizen. Military member, you are not citizens anymore.
    What crack are you smoking? Of course I'm still a citizen, if I wasn't then I wouldn't be allowed to vote and when filling out paperwork I wouldn't be able to check the box "U.S. citizen" legally. I also don't give up all of my rights when I sign on the line. If that was the case then I flat out couldn't own guns and anyone could seach me or my house at any time (on or off base) just to name a few of the things that giving up all of my rights would entail. Also Congress DOES have a say in military policies. Why else do you think CONGRESS had to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or the fact that CONGRESS is mad that the President hasn't seeked Congressional approval for the Libya war? Or how about how Congress put a stop to commanders forcing members to register their weapons that are stored off-base? Simply put, Congress DOES have a say in military policy; they just typically don't interfere.

    As for anyone with anything dealing with employment. Don't like it, go somewhere els. It's people like you that piss me off. New guy strolls into the job and see's something he doesn't like and is like, "Hey, they can't do that to me." and go screaming to legal or some bull crap. We were getting along just fine before you showed up. You might have gotten your way, but now no one in the office likes you. How does that make you feel? Before you answer, let me go get the rest of my work done.
    Uhh, you can't just "quit" the military should one not like it. Which means that if you don't like it you can't simply go somewhere else. At least not until your term is up. Which means you have to try and make the best out of what you have, and there's nothing wrong with trying to change something for what you feel is the better. Also if people didn't try to change things then we would still have blacks relegated to only being cooks and females still wouldn't be allowed to serve, among other things.

    Organizations should be allowed to have policies that work for them and that be it. It's their business, it's their baby, it's their money, it's their property. They can do what they want. You are no different than a liberal trying to take guns away, when you are trying to take away the power of ownership.
    Last time I checked the base commander doesn't "own" the base. He is in charge of running it and is given great freedom in doing so, but he doesn't own it. Also I don't know if you could tell, but people who support the 2A do try to change other businesses who don't support the 2A. They do it through various means, such as talking with the people, pressuring leadership, calling corporate, and if need be taking their business somewhere else. So now why is it suddenly so bad for a military member to try and get the military to support the 2A while on base?

    Why are gun nuts so angry, because something we cherrish and spent money on is threatend to get taken away. Why are business owners pissed off all the time when people come screaming in here and want this and that, it's because you are taking away what power they have over what they own. You are the person comming on to base, if you have a problem with it, go somewhere els. You are the person comming into my store, you got a problem with my "gun buster" sign, go somewhere els. You have a right to keep and bear arms, when you are not inside my property.
    After reading this whole post you don't come across as someone who is in the military or as someone who truely supports the 2A. First off I can't just magically "go somewhere else" that supports my 2A as that would make me AWOL. Secondly there's nothing wrong with trying to get someone to change their policies so long as you respect their policies until they change and you use the proper channels to seek change. Thirdly, once again the base commander doesn't "own" the base. He is in charge of running it. It is akin to when a manager of a store goes against corporate policy and puts up gun buster signs. Which means that there is nothing wrong with using the proper channels to try and change military (aka "corporate") policy, followed by once again using the proper channels to get base commanders (aka store managers) to follow "corporate" policy once it changes.

    I will continue to follow the orders of those appointed over me so long as they are lawful. I will also continue to push for changes to things that I strongly disagree with but are still lawful. Failing to do so would be to fail in my duties as an NCO.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    BS, don't even try to pull this. Yes rank has some perks, but there's still restrictions on what one can do. This even goes for 4star generals. Hell in the Air Force Times not too long ago there was an article about an AFR general who tried to pull this crap to get his son to be a fighter pilot and has since had to resign. And to say to just "get over it" sounds more like "I outrank you, so you can't question me.
    Agreed entirely.

    I actually got into a "tussle" of will with a 1SG who was doing the wrong thing. I was only an E4 at the time.

    It took IG to get the situation handled and the 1SG tried to haze the hell out of me for 2 weeks while the investigation was going on.

    In the end though, he was fired, and told to personally apologize to me. Which he did.

    The point is, he did not abide by the rules (V Corp Policy actually), and even after I politely reminded him (Parade rest, "1SG, Specialist _____ requests permission to speak.) he went all dirtbag on me.

    Point is, you are correct.

    There are consequences for abuse of rank, and when one has 14-15 years in, they tend to think about their treatment of soldiers and how they conduct themselves.

    One slipped up act of belligerent stupidity and you might find yourself busted to E-1 after fighting for all those years to meet promotion.

    Isn't that a bummer?
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  12. #12
    Activist Member golddigger14s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,990
    Look at Ft Hood, only MP's and psychos are allowed to carry. It wasn't even the MP's that responded, they waited for civilian swat team to show up. We have to go to Iraq and Afghanistan to OC, even then the rules of engagement are more restrictive than in my own home. They can only store very little ammo in the arms room at any time, yet I have more than X# of rounds in my bed room (it's a pretty good size number let's say).
    "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
    Look at Ft Hood, only MP's and psychos are allowed to carry. It wasn't even the MP's that responded, they waited for civilian swat team to show up. We have to go to Iraq and Afghanistan to OC, even then the rules of engagement are more restrictive than in my own home. They can only store very little ammo in the arms room at any time, yet I have more than X# of rounds in my bed room (it's a pretty good size number let's say).
    My base commander recently used the Ft. Hood incident to ban the selling of ammo on the same day as you buy a gun that can shoot that ammo. Though apparently it's worded in such a way that technically they can sell you the ammo, you can take it to your car, THEN you can buy the gun since it only says that you can't buy the ammo at the same time as the gun or for the rest of the day; nothing about buying the ammo before the gun.

    Pity him and others like him don't realize that doesn't do anything to discourage an active shooter and is simply annoying for anyone wanting to buy a new gun and ammo for it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    My base commander recently used the Ft. Hood incident to ban the selling of ammo on the same day as you buy a gun that can shoot that ammo. Though apparently it's worded in such a way that technically they can sell you the ammo, you can take it to your car, THEN you can buy the gun since it only says that you can't buy the ammo at the same time as the gun or for the rest of the day; nothing about buying the ammo before the gun.

    Pity him and others like him don't realize that doesn't do anything to discourage an active shooter and is simply annoying for anyone wanting to buy a new gun and ammo for it.
    I guess your base commander never heard of "Walmart" or "gun shops"? Sigh. It does make you wonder sometimes about the old saying "promoted to one's level of incompetence".

    Well said on all of your above statements, by the way.

  15. #15
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    If you do not agree with the terms of employment you are free to pursue another career. Common sense in the military establishment is extremely uncommon. Before all you folks get your undies in a bunch, I do not agree with these policies that base commanders institute.

    Rule #1: the CO is never wrong.
    Rule #2: if the CO is wrong, see rule #1.
    Rule #3: the CO gets to make the rules, it is one of the benies of being the CO.
    Did I say I do not agree with the terms of employment? Pursue this
    ‘‘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

  16. #16
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Okay, let's see Aknazer

    First and foremost let me say this about that, again.
    in your rant aknazer you stated that you are still a citizen, well sure you are. But when you raised your hand and swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, you also swore to obey the orders of the President and all the officers appointed above you, in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
    The UCMJ gives you certain rights, and takes away most rights that other citizens have. You no longer have the "right to petition, the right to speak openly, no the right to peaceful demonstrations. You basically have only the right to a defense council, and the right not to incriminate yourself.
    As to making you register your weapons on post if you keep them off-post? Heck they tried that on me when I was a SSG. Do you think I registered them? Hell no, they became my wife's property, by word of mouth.
    You indeed have the right to complain to your congressman, and to the IG.
    On Ft Riley anyhow, most private citizens do have access to the installation, as long as they behave themselves and don't wind up on the "Barred list"
    Just an old warhorse speaking my mind, but guess what? I didn't start off in the Army as a Sergeant Major.
    Live by the rules as long as the rules are good, then figure a way around them when it's available.
    ‘‘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

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797

    Reading Comprehension FTL?

    Quote Originally Posted by KansasMustang View Post
    First and foremost let me say this about that, again.
    in your rant aknazer you stated that you are still a citizen, well sure you are. But when you raised your hand and swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, you also swore to obey the orders of the President and all the officers appointed above you, in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
    If you go back and read my post and the quotes you would see that the person I quoted said that military members aren't citizens and I was refuting that. Also those people appointed over me took that oath and yet some of them choose to ignore parts of the Constitution.

    The UCMJ gives you certain rights, and takes away most rights that other citizens have. You no longer have the "right to petition, the right to speak openly, no the right to peaceful demonstrations. You basically have only the right to a defense council, and the right not to incriminate yourself.
    Cite please. I've seen too many people state things about the UCMJ that just aren't true. I suspect what you are referring to are the restrictions of what we can do in uniform or some other manner that makes it appear that we are acting on behalf of the military. Even though I'm in the military I can still speak freely and petition in regards to civilian issues, and often there's proper channels for me to use should I have an issue with military items.

    As to making you register your weapons on post if you keep them off-post? Heck they tried that on me when I was a SSG. Do you think I registered them? Hell no, they became my wife's property, by word of mouth.
    And what about people who aren't married or are mil-to-mil? And are you saying that people shouldn't have used proper channels to complain about the policy WHILE STILL FOLLOWING THE POLICY (caps for extra emphasis); and instead should have just dealt with it?

    You indeed have the right to complain to your congressman, and to the IG.
    Then why are you being so hostile when I say one should use those routes to try and bring about change?

    On Ft Riley anyhow, most private citizens do have access to the installation, as long as they behave themselves and don't wind up on the "Barred list"
    And I would say that that is the extreme exception. Out of all the bases I've been to I'm yet to go to a base where a non-housing section just allowed anyone to enter (I have been to a few places where the housing was separated from the main base and didn't require ID to enter).

    Just an old warhorse speaking my mind, but guess what? I didn't start off in the Army as a Sergeant Major.
    Live by the rules as long as the rules are good, then figure a way around them when it's available.
    Or I can live by the rules while working to change those that I disagree with. And that's what I've been saying this whole time. Follow the rules, but if you don't like them then work to get them changed while still following them until they change.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Clarification: The UCMJ does not take away a serviceman's rights. It does restrict certain types of activity while in uniform or under the auspices of one's service, or while on post, or on duty. If a service member is not working (on duty) on a Saturday, for example, he's free to join a downtown protest either for or against the GLBT crowd, for or against abortion, etc., provided the protests are conducted in accordance with local laws. He's free to write a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. If it's not supportive of the service, the DoD, or the United States of America, however, he'd better not sign it "John D. Doe, CAPT, U.S. Army," as the moment he does so, he's doing so under the auspices of his service and is violating the UCMJ. If he signs it "John Doe, Springfield, MO," he's technically off the hook, yet may still incur some ire of his superiors if they recognize his name.


    Quote Originally Posted by KansasMustang View Post
    Just an old warhorse speaking my mind, but guess what? I didn't start off in the Army as a Sergeant Major.

    Live by the rules as long as the rules are good, then figure a way around them when it's available.
    Sage advice, though I wouldn't skirt the rules in an unlawful manner. It's better if one can legally skirt the rules, as you did when you wife began owner of the arsenal. Openly challenging unlawful orders, on the other hand, will spell the end of one's career.
    Last edited by since9; 06-15-2011 at 07:03 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    I certainly hope you're kidding there OP. In a post-9/11 world, I wouldn't want ANYONE carrying onto a military installation, let alone open carry on one. Proof of why happened at Ft. Leonardwood very recently. There is absolutely no way for the security personnel to know that you're not a felon with terroristic intent when coming onto post.

    The idiot DOD Police that tend to be running the gates are just that...IDIOTS.

    I don't like the infringement, but if the lack of firearms being brought on post (unless they're registered with the post per that post's policies) helps provide a safer environment for our troops then so be it. But for goodness sake, put some skilled MPs back on the security detail for the post, not those idiots from the DOD Police. I know that's pushing the envelope given the violence statistics on most installations, but the controls wouldn't be in place if there weren't good reason for it on a military installation. It's called: Private Murphy's Law.

    I've worked gate security at a Conus installation. I promise you that one of the most dangerous things coming on posts tends to be the firearms that get missed by security checkpoints when a 100% search isn't in effect. For the most part the people bringing them on post don't know the laws, some simply don't realize it's loaded, and some don't know it's even in the vehicle. (yes, that last one has happened and is genuine on occasion)

    What really tears at me is that our own military personnel aren't exempt from those rules and should be. Prior to the terrorist act at Ft. Hood (that's what it was folks, no matter what the White House wants to claim), our troops used to have ways around that by being members of Rod and Gun clubs on post. But more and more the military leadership thinks it's within their authority to ask troops how many firearms they have and what those serial numbers are. To me that's a bigger issue than a civilian having a coniption that they cannot bring a firearm onto post and open carry. The failure to call the Ft. Hood incident what it actually was likely aided in a lot of commanders demanding such information on their troops.

    If Private Murphy (not intended to target any actual Private named Murphy) cannot be trusted with a firearm openly carried on post (remember, he's trained), then under no circumstances should anyone trust John Q. Public to carry a firearm on post.
    Last edited by REALteach4u; 06-22-2011 at 01:58 PM.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by REALteach4u View Post
    I certainly hope you're kidding there OP.
    Nope. I never kid about our Constitutional freedoms.

    In a post-9/11 world, I wouldn't want ANYONE carrying onto a military installation, let alone open carry on one.

    Proof of why happened at Ft. Leonardwood very recently. There is absolutely no way for the security personnel to know that you're not a felon with terroristic intent when coming onto post.
    I'm dead certain they screen for that before allowing people entry into the military... Except for those who've been medically retired, I'm also dead certain that all retirees have undergone an additional 20-year long, 40 to 60 hr/wk screening process.

    As for non-members of the military...?

    The idiot DOD Police that tend to be running the gates are just that...IDIOTS.
    Are you referring to the military police and security forces? Or are you referring to the contracted gate guards, many of whom, if not most of whom are former military police and security forces?

    I don't like the infringement, but if the lack of firearms being brought on post (unless they're registered with the post per that post's policies)...
    That constitutes "infringement."

    ...helps provide a safer environment for our troops
    Registration has never helped create a safer environment. Creating gun free zones has a very negative impact on safety. I'm a Virginia Tech graduate, and Virginia Tech was, and still is, a gun-free zone. Gee, that worked out SO well, didn't it? Nearly all military bases are gun-free zones, as well, at least for most of the folks who're authorized to be on base and use on-base facilities. Hmm... Including Ft. Hood... I guess that didn't work out very well, either. Neither did the rampage through the hospital at Fairchild AFB. I was there for that one. Monday, bloody Monday, and a friend of mine was killed.

    But for goodness sake, put some skilled MPs back on the security detail for the post, not those idiots from the DOD Police.
    Ok, so you were referring to contract gate guards. Were you aware of their backgrounds?

    I know that's pushing the envelope given the violence statistics on most installations, but the controls wouldn't be in place if there weren't good reason for it on a military installation.
    The worst of choices are often made with the best intentions.

    I've worked gate security at a Conus installation. I promise you that one of the most dangerous things coming on posts tends to be the firearms that get missed by security checkpoints when a 100% search isn't in effect. For the most part the people bringing them on post don't know the laws, some simply don't realize it's loaded, and some don't know it's even in the vehicle. (yes, that last one has happened and is genuine on occasion)
    Gee... I can eat breakfast Saturday morning at IHOP in the midst of dozens of men, women, and children while open carrying, and no one gives a flying hoot. Yet if I step one foot on base with a firearm in the country I served for twenty years and whose Constitution I swore to protect against all enemies foreign and domestic I'm instantly thrown into "the most dangerous" category.

    What really tears at me is that our own military personnel aren't exempt from those rules and should be.
    Ah... Now we're getting somewhere. The military member's rank matters not. What matters is whether or not they're in good standing (no disciplinary, medical, or psychological issues precluding possession of a firearm) and currently qualified to carry a firearm. If they meet these minimum requirements, then by all means, they should be allowed to carry at all times, depending on the mission (you wouldn't want a mechanic inspecting the inside of a fuel tank to be carrying a firearm...).

    Prior to the terrorist act at Ft. Hood (that's what it was folks, no matter what the White House wants to claim), our troops used to have ways around that by being members of Rod and Gun clubs on post. But more and more the military leadership thinks it's within their authority to ask troops how many firearms they have and what those serial numbers are. To me that's a bigger issue than a civilian having a coniption that they cannot bring a firearm onto post and open carry. The failure to call the Ft. Hood incident what it actually was likely aided in a lot of commanders demanding such information on their troops.
    Actually, installation commanders are motivated more by a desire to avoid potential repercussions than they are anything else. They're usually O-6s and O-7s, and looking for their first or second stars. If a madman guns down some folks on base and the after action report finds they didn't have a reg on the books prohibiting carry on post, their butts are in a sling and they can say bye-bye to that next star. Fat lot of good a simple black and white paragraph does with respect to preventing anyone from sneaking a firearm on base, though. But you get the point. The regs are a CYA maneuver, not valid attempt to prevent future incidents.

    If Private Murphy (not intended to target any actual Private named Murphy) cannot be trusted with a firearm openly carried on post (remember, he's trained), then under no circumstances should anyone trust John Q. Public to carry a firearm on post.
    I would argue that depends on the identity of John Q. Public. Many folks who work on post are civilians, and some of those civilians hold security clearances exceeding most folks on post, and are vetted in positions equivalent in rank to senior officers. You may not want to extend it to the guy riding the lawnmowers, but what about a senior analyst (GS-15)? For that matter, what about a junior analyst (GS-13)? How about a TS-cleared technical writer working for one of the formal military schools (GS-11)? What about an administrative assistant within a squadron (GS-9)?

    Where does one draw the line???
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

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