since9
Campaign Veteran
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: