• 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

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Leaders of the armed services committees are so intent on making a change that they announced Friday that they will include language on allowing troops to arm themselves in this year’s defense policy bill.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/17/defense-policy-bill-address-letting-troops-use-gun/

That's good news, if it passes. Any updates?

Good. Now, about US ex-troops, we veterans?

Contrary to popular misconception, veterans retain 100% of all rights of citizenship as does anyone else in the U.S. Due to the nature of military service, veterans face additional obligations under federal law, the failure of which may be punishable under the UCMJ. In civilian service, if you're late to work, you can be reprimanded or even fired. In the military, you can be reprimanded and given non-judicial punishment. If you don't show at all, you're AWOL and may face judicial punishment, whereas in the civilian sector you would simply be let go.

Again, veterans do NOT forfeit their rights as U.S. citizens. Rather, they incur additional obligations commensurate with military service.

As for carry on base, I used to do it all the time when I lived on base, from 1991 through 1993. Then again, the base reg explicitely allowed it, provided the firearm was transported directly between quarters and off-base with the firearm unloaded and laying visible in the front seat with the ammunition in the trunk. Once I was off-base, I was free to stop, load it, and carry it either open (no permit required) or concealed (permit required). Returning home I reversed the procedure. A bit of a pain, but certainly doable.

By 1994, however, I could no longer carry on base. The gun-hating Clintons were in office and the rules had changed to oppose the Constitution.

Let's hope the tide swings back the other way, and soon.

ETA: The article states, "While advocates of the idea say arming troops could have stopped gunmen in incidents like the 2009 shooting at Fort Hood and the 2013 shooting at the Washington Navy Yard, the military has long said that it does not support allowing service members to carry weapons on base."

Naturally, this raises the question as to why military leaders believe that allowing service members to carry weapons on base is someone more desirable than putting them at risk of attack, if not death, at the hands of those who oppose the U.S., especially the military?

I think our "military leaders" and We the People need to have a serious come to Jesus meeting. I, for one, am not in favor of putting our military members and their families in harm's way just because some stupid with a messed up ideology desires to make "gun free zones" out of entire military bases.

That is flat out insane, not to mention un-Constitutional.
 
Last edited:

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
That's good news, if it passes. Any updates?



Contrary to popular misconception, veterans retain 100% of all rights of citizenship as does anyone else in the U.S. Due to the nature of military service, veterans face additional obligations under federal law, the failure of which may be punishable under the UCMJ. In civilian service, if you're late to work, you can be reprimanded or even fired. In the military, you can be reprimanded and given non-judicial punishment. If you don't show at all, you're AWOL and may face judicial punishment, whereas in the civilian sector you would simply be let go.

Again, veterans do NOT forfeit their rights as U.S. citizens. Rather, they incur additional obligations commensurate with military service.

As for carry on base, I used to do it all the time when I lived on base, from 1991 through 1993. Then again, the base reg explicitely allowed it, provided the firearm was transported directly between quarters and off-base with the firearm unloaded and laying visible in the front seat with the ammunition in the trunk. Once I was off-base, I was free to stop, load it, and carry it either open (no permit required) or concealed (permit required). Returning home I reversed the procedure. A bit of a pain, but certainly doable.

By 1994, however, I could no longer carry on base. The gun-hating Clintons were in office and the rules had changed to oppose the Constitution.

Let's hope the tide swings back the other way, and soon.

ETA: The article states, "While advocates of the idea say arming troops could have stopped gunmen in incidents like the 2009 shooting at Fort Hood and the 2013 shooting at the Washington Navy Yard, the military has long said that it does not support allowing service members to carry weapons on base."

Naturally, this raises the question as to why military leaders believe that allowing service members to carry weapons on base is someone more desirable than putting them at risk of attack, if not death, at the hands of those who oppose the U.S., especially the military?

I think our "military leaders" and We the People need to have a serious come to Jesus meeting. I, for one, am not in favor of putting our military members and their families in harm's way just because some stupid with a messed up ideology desires to make "gun free zones" out of entire military bases.

That is flat out insane, not to mention un-Constitutional.

here is a flipside to all this.. Obama abolishes the no armament on base law, now we have an armed standing army on U.S. soil.. he then institutes martial law using these home base military personel to suspend the rights under the constitution..... *tin foil hat on*
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
here is a flipside to all this.. Obama abolishes the no armament on base law, now we have an armed standing army on U.S. soil.. he then institutes martial law using these home base military personel to suspend the rights under the constitution..... *tin foil hat on*

And how long to you think it would take any base to arm up. There are plenty of arms on most military base it just most of them are under lock and key. The military can arm up on short notice trouble is it is not short enough when you have the latest style attacks.
 
Last edited:

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
And how long to you think it would take any base to arm up. There are plenty of arms on most military base it just most of them are under lock and key. The military can arm up on short notice trouble is it is not short enough when you have the latest style attacks.

instantaneous mobility, no need to arm up, giving the masses a chance to become informed of the move and arm up and launch an offensive.. if necessary.

just theoretical strategic thought here, no basis that this could happen in reality.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
snipp....

Due to the nature of military service, veterans face additional obligations under federal law, the failure of which may be punishable under the UCMJ.

I'm sorry say what? how can a veteran face obligations under federal law, punishable under ucmj?

SURELY you misspoke...IAW Title 38 USC 101

(2) The term ‘‘veteran’’ means a person who
served in the active military, naval, or air service,
and who was discharged or released therefrom
under conditions other than dishonorable


now kindly explain how a veteran is punishable by UCMJ

snippp... veterans do NOT forfeit their rights as U.S. citizens. Rather, they incur additional obligations commensurate with military service. SEE ABOVE?

As for carry on base, I used to do it all the time when I lived on base, from 1991 through 1993.

and which CONUS base was this activity allowed at?? personal or service firearm?

Then again, the base reg explicitely allowed it, provided the firearm was transported directly between quarters and off-base with the firearm unloaded and laying visible in the front seat with the ammunition in the trunk. Once I was off-base, I was free to stop, load it, and carry it either open (no permit required) or concealed (permit required). Returning home I reversed the procedure. A bit of a pain, but certainly doable.

that is not the same mentality of what is being discussed at the moment. the military is discussing allowing military members to be armed pistol on their side.

By 1994, however, I could no longer carry on base. The gun-hating Clintons were in office and the rules had changed to oppose the Constitution.

Let's hope the tide swings back the other way, and soon.

ETA: The article states, "While advocates of the idea say arming troops could have stopped gunmen in incidents like the 2009 shooting at Fort Hood and the 2013 shooting at the Washington Navy Yard, the military has long said that it does not support allowing service members to carry weapons on base."

Naturally, this raises the question as to why military leaders believe that allowing service members to carry weapons on base is someone more desirable than putting them at risk of attack, if not death, at the hands of those who oppose the U.S., especially the military?

I think our "military leaders" and We the People need to have a serious come to Jesus meeting. I, for one, am not in favor of putting our military members and their families in harm's way just because some stupid with a messed up ideology desires to make "gun free zones" out of entire military bases.

That is flat out insane, not to mention un-Constitutional.

your have/are confusing active duty service member with veterans...

see above

ipse
 
Last edited:

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
I wrote to my representative, here in Washington State. His name is Reichert. Today, I finally got a reply. I did not say that I got an answer as his reply gives me the impression he did not even read my request. I wrote concerning the latest shooting of Recruiters and other Troops. Rep dave thinks Fort Hood was recent. He thinks we need more laws. Sad. I hope we do better next election.

you can write to him here
https://reichert.house.gov/contact-me/email-me
but I am sorry to say, you will never reach him.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
I wrote to my representative, here in Washington State. His name is Reichert. Today, I finally got a reply. I did not say that I got an answer as his reply gives me the impression he did not even read my request. I wrote concerning the latest shooting of Recruiters and other Troops. Rep dave thinks Fort Hood was recent. He thinks we need more laws. Sad. I hope we do better next election.

you can write to him here
https://reichert.house.gov/contact-me/email-me
but I am sorry to say, you will never reach him.
I have met him. He is a statist and an A hole.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 
Top