• 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.

military base carry debate

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
interesting debate i saw on another site

I guess it's "interesting" to see how readily members of the armed forces are to surrender their RKBA. It's also "interesting" to see how few of them seem to understand why they are not allowed/permitted/required to carry their duty firearm everywhere they go on base.

There is no question that, paradoxial as it may seem, one is required to give up many rights when serving in the armed forces. However, the attitude of active duty folks that they and their brothers/sisters in arms are inherently untrustworthy seems to bother "us" more than it does "them". That they see us civillians as inherently untrustworthy is also "interesting".

The real question is: what will all this "interest" give us in the end?

stay safe.
 

Uber_Olafsun

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
583
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
The one talking about fort hood made me blink. I another ft hood happens you can stop it well before police can respond. The sad thing is these same people will get deployed and be issued arms to carry all the time and that won't bother them.
 

diablos30

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
46
Location
goldsboro, north carolina
I guess it's "interesting" to see how readily members of the armed forces are to surrender their RKBA. It's also "interesting" to see how few of them seem to understand why they are not allowed/permitted/required to carry their duty firearm everywhere they go on base.

There is no question that, paradoxial as it may seem, one is required to give up many rights when serving in the armed forces. However, the attitude of active duty folks that they and their brothers/sisters in arms are inherently untrustworthy seems to bother "us" more than it does "them". That they see us civillians as inherently untrustworthy is also "interesting".

The real question is: what will all this "interest" give us in the end?

stay safe.

i found it sad that they are so willing to give up the rights that they are sworn to defend and also they find us so untrustworthy. one other thing that got me was the debate about the lack of training.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Small Arms Instructor/Range Master in my Navy days, a high percentage of folks who got 'qualified' while in, should not be allowed to carry, let alone own, after they got out.
 

ncwabbit

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
670
Location
rural religious usa
query

when i have personally asked AF security senior NCOs what is the specific federal statute which prohibits non-security personnel from carrying on federal installations, they shrug and say they will get back to me. These good folk do not even hesitate to state the requirement comes from a service unique AFI/policy and always state is it a federal mandate.

i have attempted to search the Federal Statues w/o success but i do not believe i am putting in the right words for the search do delinate anything of substance...

thoughts on where i can locate the specific statues so i might read up on them?

wabbit

ps i am also pinging the original OPs cite to see if someone out there knows the answer to this query.
 

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
i have attempted to search the Federal Statues w/o success but i do not believe i am putting in the right words for the search do delinate anything of substance...

thoughts on where i can locate the specific statues so i might read up on them?

Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS
Sec. 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
(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 or attempts to kill 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, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, and 1113.

(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 2 1/2 inches in length.

(3) The term "Federal court facility" means the courtroom, judges' chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.

(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection(a) or (e), as the case may be.


You will NOT carry a gun, you will NOT defend yourself on base, you will NOT carry a gun to and from work or any stops during the work day. If you're out on lunch off base and you and your comrades are targets because of your uniform - TOUGH LUCK. The government would rather see your child grow up with out a father than have you carry a gun to and from work for lawful self defense off base. PERIOD This will NEVER change.

You can carry a gun to kill people to defend your government's interests, but you better not carry a gun while driving home so your family can have a daddy growing up.
 
Last edited:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS
Sec. 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities



You will NOT carry a gun, you will NOT defend yourself on base, you will NOT carry a gun to and from work or any stops during the work day. If you're out on lunch off base and you and your comrades are targets because of your uniform - TOUGH LUCK. The government would rather see your child grow up with out a father than have you carry a gun to and from work for lawful self defense off base. PERIOD This will NEVER change.

You can carry a gun to kill people to defend your government's interests, but you better not carry a gun while driving home so your family can have a daddy growing up.

What about the bolded part that lists the exemption for "other lawful activity"? Last I checked self defense was lawful.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Ya ever stop and think that military 'leaders' kind of have a clue as to the average enlisted person's temperament and such. I'm not necessarily stating that policies that prohibit carry may not have a small, very small, element of anti-gun in them, but it may be more of mitigating potential problems due to the wide variety of backgrounds that the military has to deal with. Kind of difficult to figure out who is/would be a responsible carrier, so, just make it easy, nobody gets to carry except when their job requires them to carry. No going to the club and knocking back a few frost friendlies while on duty sort of thing.

Ft. Hood remains the rare, very rare, exception.
 

Stanley

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
375
Location
Reston, VA
Small Arms Instructor/Range Master in my Navy days, a high percentage of folks who got 'qualified' while in, should not be allowed to carry, let alone own, after they got out.

Many of us were awkward with weapons. No way was I responsible enough to carry when I was in.

I will say though that the safety aspect was drilled in quite nicely.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.919543,-77.153656
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
So the Personnel Reliability Program was good enough for special weapons but not small arms? Either we are equal or we are not.
 

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
Ya ever stop and think that military 'leaders' kind of have a clue as to the average enlisted person's temperament and such. I'm not necessarily stating that policies that prohibit carry may not have a small, very small, element of anti-gun in them, but it may be more of mitigating potential problems due to the wide variety of backgrounds that the military has to deal with.
> as if the base doesn't already have 18 year old kids walking around with grenade launchers (MPs)
> as if this isn't the MILITARY and guns isn't a part of 'what we do'
> as if random people from random career fields aren't pulled out of their duty to work security armed with M16s and M9s
> as if we aren't (did I say this already?) the ARMED FORCES
^ If this was the case then sure, maybe everyone shouldn't carry. BUT WE'RE THE "ARMED" FORCES yet we can't be ARMED to defend ourselves, not even driving to and from work. While at the same time the 18 year old that scored the lowest on his ASVAB and got kicked back from his original career field is walking up and down the flight line with a M4M203

"Potential problems" is a bull crap excuse. If you can't be trusted to be ARMED then you shouldn't have been allowed into the ARMED forces. Period. For god's sake, we work around fighter jets, bombers, bombs and missiles themselves, but I can't have a gun in my car when I drive home because there could be a POTENTIAL problem on base? lolwut?



Ft. Hood remains the rare, very rare, exception.
Well although it is very RARE - it sure happened. Didn't a fellow soldier throw a hand grenade into a tent full of soldiers in the beginning of this War on Terror? (not saying handguns on homestation would have prevented this, but I'm pointing out the threat from fellow servicemen) What about the armed robberies on military posts? In 2010 one person was SHOT in an ARMED robery on Ft. Carson. There is still crime happening on military installations.
 
Last edited:

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
i have attempted to search the Federal Statues w/o success but i do not believe i am putting in the right words for the search do delinate anything of substance...

thoughts on where i can locate the specific statues so i might read up on them?

Another thing to note- The authority for installation commanders to suspend the 2nd Amendment is a BIG stretch. They have this 'authority' to suspend the 2nd Amendment because of the Internal Security ACT of 1950. This bill was vetoed by President Truman as a "mockery of the bill of rights" and "a long step towards totalitarianism." The veto was over rid, by you guessed it, a Democrat controlled congress. The Internal Security ACT of 1950 (50 USC 797) is cited in regulations for the Army and Air Force as the Installation Commander's authorty to control Privately Owned Weapons (POWs).

Do some googling for more information on it.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
There are a great many service members who are very rarely, if ever, required to be armed to perform their duties after basic training. Not saying I agree with the policy, but hey, what are you gunna spend your time getting changed? To me, this issue is a non-issue for the 200 million plus folks who should be worrying about their 2A right who are not in the military.
 

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
Another thing to note- The authority for installation commanders to suspend the 2nd Amendment is a BIG stretch. They have this 'authority' to suspend the 2nd Amendment because of the Internal Security ACT of 1950. This bill was vetoed by President Truman as a "mockery of the bill of rights" and "a long step towards totalitarianism." The veto was over rid, by you guessed it, a Democrat controlled congress. The Internal Security ACT of 1950 (50 USC 797) is cited in regulations for the Army and Air Force as the Installation Commander's authorty to control Privately Owned Weapons (POWs).

Do some googling for more information on it.

Yes, I recall The Commanding General of the Army in Alaska instituted such policy a number of years back. Under his command you were not even allowed to carry off base concealed , off duty, on your time in civies.

I don't know if the order is still standing?
 
Last edited:

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
It makes me sad that so many military members feel that the ARMED Forces can't be trusted and thus should be unarmed while on a base. I mean these are people who took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, then turn around and support it's restriction. Especially those that aren't even willing to think about those who have a CCW permit (not that I think a CCW permit should be required to carry, simply that by not allowing those who have shown they can carry off-base to carry on-base they are EXTREMELY close-minded and apparently think we would become idiots by simply driving through the gates). And for me, I don't want to carry while on base because I expect to need it on base (yes crime still happens on base, but it's almost never the type that would require a gun to defend one's self), it's because I want to be armed when I leave the base. The fact that it would allow me to defend myself if another Ft Hood event happened is a bonus, it simply isn't my primary concern.

Oh and the obligatory "it's my right" bit.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
So y'all have already forgotten Major Nidal Malik Hassan?

Y'all really must study the plausibility of unique events to decide if he is the only such one.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
So y'all have already forgotten Major Nidal Malik Hassan?

Y'all really must study the plausibility of unique events to decide if he is the only such one.

I'm just curious, but does anyone know when the mass-shooting on a base was before this? I agree in being prepared for these types of events and allowing the armed forces to carry on base should they choose (allowing the carry of non-prior military civilians to carry on-base would be a sticky subject for me given that the base is still a sensitive area with controlled entry), but the reason I ask is because I don't really know of any other shootings like this. And if these cases or really any cases of murder (not including the family murders or murder-suicide that occasionally happen in on-base houses) are excessively rare, then it makes it that much easier for antis to make the case for no weapons for "safety" reasons.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
Military installations are replete with "buildings where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties", and therefore meet the USC definition of a "Federal facility". What I have some difficulty with, is determining what there is to be lawfully "hunting" ( re: (d)(3) )in those buildings? Apparently, although not specifically stated as such, a Federal facility must include all the property upon which the buildings sit as well. :uhoh: Pax...
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
The military can limit, restrict, infringe upon your rights while you serve. That 'maintaining good order and discipline' thing. This is not about our right(s) so much as it is about the military, a separate and distinctly unique 'society' within the USA. SCOTUS has recognized and affirmed this 'uniqueness'.

Of the original 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) the military can legally infringe, in one form or another, and to a certain extent, upon your 1st, 2nd, 4th, some of your 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th enumerated rights. And there is not a darn thing anyone can do about it today and for the foreseeable future. I'll leave it to you former military folks to recall when the military did the infringing, because they did whether you noticed it or not.

Why we here on OCDO focus on the 2nd of the original 10 and not every other instance of infringement of the others, by the military, is perplexing to say the least.

But, we all have a right to be inconsistent, anytime we choose.
 
Top