Fort Hood Shooting - who needs a gun onbase?

[DocKen]

imported post

As a current resident of Arizona, stationed in Virginia, I wrote a letter to Senator McCain asking for consideration of a policy allowing some kind of carry onbase for Military members, and possibly a Federal Carry permit that military members could get, with hopefully Federal reciprocity.

I'm sure that even if they had a policy onbase to carry handguns, that the base/military would want to do it's own approval, no matter the policies out in town, so why not kill two birds with one stone.

Probably won't happen in my lifetime, but he has responded positively to my 2A letters in the past, and as Ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, he will be involved in looking at this tradgedy and making some recommendations.

Little unlikely, but can always ask. Worst thing that can happen is they do nothing, and we're no worse off than we are now.

 

[essayons]

imported post

A much simpler option than relying on privately owned weapons is to adopt a force protection posture on base more in line with the fact that we are fighting a war with no fronts, including on our homeland.

OCONUS base force protection would be a good model. Armed guards, with carbines and MGs at the front gate, no non-military personnel on base without body and vehicle search, and soldiers armed with personal issued weapons and one magazine.

Frankly, we are fighting a war and we need to act like it. Personally owned firearms have no business getting through the gate. Yes it is a pain in the ass for those of us who use on-base firing ranges and other facilities, but we are at WAR.

If base commanders want to require privately owned weapons be stored in the armory I have no problem with that. You give up a lot of your rights when you take the oath.

However, completely disarming soldiers is so stupid it is criminal. If Army leadership won't adopt a meaningful force protection posture, Congress should flex its muscle and allow soldiers to take the necessary steps to arm themselves.

 

[45acpForMe]

imported post

I am a civilian and I don't think I should give up my rights when I drive on base.

Simply letting all people carry provides the best protection.

If they don't have business on base don't let them on it!

 

[Wolf_shadow]

imported post

essayons wrote:

A much simpler option than relying on privately owned weapons is to adopt a force protection posture on base more in line with the fact that we are fighting a war with no fronts, including on our homeland.

OCONUS base force protection would be a good model. Armed guards, with carbines and MGs at the front gate, no non-military personnel on base without body and vehicle search, and soldiers armed with personal issued weapons and one magazine.

Frankly, we are fighting a war and we need to act like it. Personally owned firearms have no business getting through the gate. Yes it is a pain in the ass for those of us who use on-base firing ranges and other facilities, but we are at WAR.

If base commanders want to require privately owned weapons be stored in the armory I have no problem with that. You give up a lot of your rights when you take the oath.

However, completely disarming soldiers is so stupid it is criminal. If Army leadership won't adopt a meaningful force protection posture, Congress should flex its muscle and allow soldiers to take the necessary steps to arm themselves.

I don't remember anything in the oath I took when I entered the military, or the oath I take now as an elected official (Town Council), that says anything about giving up my god given rights. All law abiding US citizens over the age of 18 should be able to be armed.
:cuss:

Your right we are at war. What makes you think because I'm no longer in the military I should not be able to defend myself against attack.

:banghead:

 

[thnycav]

imported post

I do have a ccp and do work on post. Even with the shooting at Ft Hood the odds of getting involved in something like that is extremely rare. I do feel safe on post. I wish off post was the same way. When I do go to work I do leave my weapon at home.

 

[essayons]

imported post

Wolf_shadow wrote:

essayons wrote:

A much simpler option than relying on privately owned weapons is to adopt a force protection posture on base more in line with the fact that we are fighting a war with no fronts, including on our homeland.

OCONUS base force protection would be a good model. Armed guards, with carbines and MGs at the front gate, no non-military personnel on base without body and vehicle search, and soldiers armed with personal issued weapons and one magazine.

Frankly, we are fighting a war and we need to act like it. Personally owned firearms have no business getting through the gate. Yes it is a pain in the ass for those of us who use on-base firing ranges and other facilities, but we are at WAR.

If base commanders want to require privately owned weapons be stored in the armory I have no problem with that. You give up a lot of your rights when you take the oath.

However, completely disarming soldiers is so stupid it is criminal. If Army leadership won't adopt a meaningful force protection posture, Congress should flex its muscle and allow soldiers to take the necessary steps to arm themselves.

I don't remember anything in the oath I took when I entered the military, or the oath I take now as an elected official (Town Council), that says anything about giving up my god given rights. All law abiding US citizens over the age of 18 should be able to be armed.
:cuss:

Your right we are at war. What makes you think because I'm no longer in the military I should not be able to defend myself against attack.

:banghead:

I figured I'd rile some people up with that one.

The oath I referred to was the one you take when you join the military... not as an elected official. And you do give up certain civil rights that you would have as a civilian... being subject to UCMJ is one. UCMJ is not superior to the U.S. Constitution, so of course servicemembers shouldn't and couldn't be denied the right to keep and bear arms. However, as a society we have allowed our representative governments on the state and federal level to place certain restrictions and regulations on that right. Those are the paramaters I am operating under. Would I like more libertarian gun laws? You damn betcha!

When did I ever say that you shouldn't be able to defend yourself from attack because you are no longer in the military? If you read the entire post, you will see I support carry of privately owned weapons IF the military won't adopt real force protection measures.

 

[essayons]

imported post

45acpForMe wrote:

I am a civilian and I don't think I should give up my rights when I drive on base.

Simply letting all people carry provides the best protection.  

If they don't have business on base don't let them on it!

You already give up your 4th amendment rights.

What would be more effective... allowing soldiers and civilians to carry a mix of handguns with varying levels of training, where maybe 1 in 20 will be carrying... or having nearly every soldier (or maybe just combat arms types) carrying a rifle or carbine with which they have all received a uniform level of training?

 

[Wolf_shadow]

imported post

essayons wrote:

Wolf_shadow wrote:

essayons wrote:

A much simpler option than relying on privately owned weapons is to adopt a force protection posture on base more in line with the fact that we are fighting a war with no fronts, including on our homeland.

OCONUS base force protection would be a good model. Armed guards, with carbines and MGs at the front gate, no non-military personnel on base without body and vehicle search, and soldiers armed with personal issued weapons and one magazine.

Frankly, we are fighting a war and we need to act like it. Personally owned firearms have no business getting through the gate. Yes it is a pain in the ass for those of us who use on-base firing ranges and other facilities, but we are at WAR.

If base commanders want to require privately owned weapons be stored in the armory I have no problem with that. You give up a lot of your rights when you take the oath.

However, completely disarming soldiers is so stupid it is criminal. If Army leadership won't adopt a meaningful force protection posture, Congress should flex its muscle and allow soldiers to take the necessary steps to arm themselves.

I don't remember anything in the oath I took when I entered the military, or the oath I take now as an elected official (Town Council), that says anything about giving up my god given rights. All law abiding US citizens over the age of 18 should be able to be armed.
:cuss:

Your right we are at war. What makes you think because I'm no longer in the military I should not be able to defend myself against attack.

:banghead:

I figured I'd rile some people up with that one.

The oath I referred to was the one you take when you join the military... not as an elected official. And you do give up certain civil rights that you would have as a civilian... being subject to UCMJ is one. UCMJ is not superior to the U.S. Constitution, so of course servicemembers shouldn't and couldn't be denied the right to keep and bear arms. However, as a society we have allowed our representative governments on the state and federal level to place certain restrictions and regulations on that right. Those are the paramaters I am operating under. Would I like more libertarian gun laws? You damn betcha!

When did I ever say that you shouldn't be able to defend yourself from attack because you are no longer in the military? If you read the entire post, you will see I support carry of privately owned weapons IF the military won't adopt real force protection measures.

Your words: "Frankly, we are fighting a war and we need to act like it. Personally owned firearms have no business getting through the gate. Yes it is a pain in the ass for those of us who use on-base firing ranges and other facilities, but we are at WAR.
So you are saying a civilian with business on a military base should give up their firearm, or are you suggesting the guberment should issue me a firearm when I give up my privately owned one when I enter the base. And while it's been a while since I was in the military the oath I took like the oath I take as an official says I will defend the constitution of the United States. Not give up my rights.

 

[DocKen]

imported post

After reading this, I think I should change the subject line to " Fort Hood Shooting - Who needs a metal chair on base?"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-11-24-fort-hood-hero_N.htm

 

[AEubanks]

imported post

There was a couple of Major's who wrote in to the Marine Corps Times that had their statements published talking about how military personnel are trusted to carry loaded weapons 24/7 in a war zone but not offered the same chance to protect themselves on base in the United States.... I doubt anything comes of this, but I would like to see some changes.....

 

[Repeater]

imported post

John Lott pblished a blog entry from J. Neil Schulman on the origins of the no weapons policy.

When soldiers stopped being able to carry guns around military facilities

A Clinton Administration revision to Department of Defense Directive 5210.56 — Army Regulation 190-14, dated 12 March 1993 — permits the Secretary of the Army to authorize military personnel to carry firearms “on a case by case basis” for personal protection within the continental United States, but forbids military personnel to carry their own personal firearms and both requires “a credible and specific threat” before firearms be issued for military personnel to protect themselves. It further directs that firearms “not be issued indiscriminately for that purpose.”

Thus did President Bill Clinton — Commander-in-Chief of the United States Army — apply to American military personnel under his command the same anti-gun policies his administration and a Democratic-controlled Congress applied to American civilians in the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons ban of 1994.

This Clinton policy of restricting military personnel from routinely carrying arms for protection was left in effect for the eight years of the administration of President George W. Bush — even after the 9/11 terror attacks — and even though Republicans held both the White House and majority control of both houses of Congress from January 2003 to January 2007.

John McHugh became the 21st Secretary of the U.S. Army on September 21, 2009, seven weeks prior to U.S. Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s November 5, 2009 shooting spree that murdered 13 and wounded another 38. Secretary McHugh — not reported as having the psychic power of precognition — issued no authorization for Fort Hood military personnel to be issued arms for personal protection against the specific threat of attack by Major Hasan.
​

 

[DocKen]

imported post

I'm not sure this is entirely true. Having retired with 26 years of service, never during the time I've been in have I EVER been allowed to carry a personal weapon on base. Signs at the gate have always forbidden those. Particularly in CA where it was pretty much banned while I was stationed out there. But it is pretty much the same out here.

Gun laws offbase are a little freer here than CA, so there is a way to carry them onbase to the range, which I have done on several occassions. This is not the same however as being able to carry them for personal protection.

Don't care much for Clintons, but this particular directive did very little one way or the other to what was currently the status quo.

It gave a way for Military members to get authorization to carry, however it put so many restrictions on them, it did practically nothing, and wasn't worth more than the paper it was written on.

I'd like to see current state rules pertain to the base, as it will to National Parks. At the very least, I should be able to get an onbase "permit" of some type that is along the lines of "shall issue."

Propably won't happen in my lifetime however.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Repeater wrote:

John Lott pblished a blog entry from J. Neil Schulman on the origins of the no weapons policy.

When soldiers stopped being able to carry guns around military facilities

A Clinton Administration revision to Department of Defense Directive 5210.56 — Army Regulation 190-14, dated 12 March 1993 — permits the Secretary of the Army to authorize military personnel to carry firearms “on a case by case basis” for personal protection within the continental United States, but forbids military personnel to carry their own personal firearms and both requires “a credible and specific threat” before firearms be issued for military personnel to protect themselves. It further directs that firearms “not be issued indiscriminately for that purpose.”
 
Thus did President Bill Clinton — Commander-in-Chief of the United States Army — apply to American military personnel under his command the same anti-gun policies his administration and a Democratic-controlled Congress applied to American civilians in the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons ban of 1994.
 
This Clinton policy of restricting military personnel from routinely carrying arms for protection was left in effect for the eight years of the administration of President George W. Bush — even after the 9/11 terror attacks — and even though Republicans held both the White House and majority control of both houses of Congress from January 2003 to January 2007.
 
John McHugh became the 21st Secretary of the U.S. Army on September 21, 2009, seven weeks prior to U.S. Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s November 5, 2009 shooting spree that murdered 13 and wounded another 38. Secretary McHugh — not reported as having the psychic power of precognition — issued no authorization for Fort Hood military personnel to be issued arms for personal protection against the specific threat of attack by Major Hasan.
​

In my view this is actually a way for Clinton to ALLOW carry of firearms by military personnel on American soil. Remember the Military are not allowed to be deployed inside the US for possible application as a national police force. For this reason there are restrictions on Military use and carry of firearms here at home. There are general proscriptions against carry of firearms on military bases and the Clinton order actually eased those restrictions.

Think about what he may have had in mind under those conditions.

Regards