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???
