View Full Version : military bases are gun free zones?
texasrangers
11-09-09, 17:38
are they serious?
the government doesn't even trust its troops to carry weapons on bases? ONE PERSON with their sidearm could have stopped that murderous lunatic, ONE PERSON. If they don't even trust them to carry their M9 on their person on base, why do they trust them to carry SAWs and M4's and Javelins overseas. It just makes absolutely no sense. Gun free zones are some of the most dangerous places I've ever heard of. All it takes is one person, whether its a teacher with a snubbie at Columbine, a student with a piece at VT, or 1,000 armed servicemen at Ft. Hood.
yes they are. you are supposed to register your firearms with security forces if you live on base.
Usually , family quarters on post are not gun free zones.
When I was an MP Plt Sgt after crosstraining from being a medic, we would disarm local law enforcement if they required access on post, you cannot have weapons on your person or in your vehicle, unless in transit to a shooting related activity, the armory or your housing and they must be declared to the MPs on duty at the gate when entering. They must be registered with the Provost Marshall, personnel living in the barracks have their weapons stored in the Unit Armory, those that live in housing may have them in their family quarters.
Some of the policy is set by the Base Commander, some by the Department of the Army or DOD.
ThirdWatcher
11-09-09, 18:18
When I was an MP at Ft. Bragg, NC in the mid 1970's, it was an open post. The only civilian LE I ever saw on post was NCSHP, and it never crossed my mind to try to disarm them. :confused:
before 9/11 we were open post as well, after 9/11 it was 100% ID check getting on with random vehicle searches as well, vehicles could be searched anywhere at anytime while on base, entry on to the base was determined to grant us permission to search you or your vehicle.
For those that didn't agree, there was a parking area where vehicles could be left off base and you could walk on but still were subject to ID checks and possibly being pat searched.
Military personnel failing to comply were subject to UCMJ action for failure to obey a lawful order, civilians who failed to comply were barred entry to the premises.
Sponsors were responsible for the actions of their dependents and guests.
eightmillimeter
11-09-09, 18:31
Iowa Law Enforcement Academy is on the grounds of Camp Dodge in Johnston, IA; so they pretty much expect people to be bringing in guns. That said, if they ever tried to disarm me if I showed up for training in uniform in my marked car with my ID, I would not be happy. There are no MP's at the gates, they seem to have their own LE.
National Guard Camps are under the command of the Governor via the Adjutant General, at Camp Mabry while there are armed security guards at the gates I can carry my concealed handgun on post as it is a State facility not federal, just not into any buildings where federal employees are working.
Most of the time we didn't really mess with the local cops about the weapons, but they had to lock them in the trunk of their vehicles before entering any buildings.
We assisted with any warrant service or arrests on base.
When I was an MP Plt Sgt after crosstraining from being a medic, we would disarm local law enforcement if they required access on post, you cannot have weapons on your person or in your vehicle, unless in transit to a shooting related activity, the armory or your housing and they must be declared to the MPs on duty at the gate when entering. They must be registered with the Provost Marshall, personnel living in the barracks have their weapons stored in the Unit Armory, those that live in housing may have them in their family quarters.
Some of the policy is set by the Base Commander, some by the Department of the Army or DOD.
When I was an MP at Ft. Bragg, NC in the mid 1970's, it was an open post. The only civilian LE I ever saw on post was NCSHP, and it never crossed my mind to try to disarm them. :confused:
Most of the time we didn't really mess with the local cops about the weapons, but they had to lock them in the trunk of their vehicles before entering any buildings. We assisted with any warrant service or arrests on base.
That's interesting...
Was your installation classified entirely federal exclusive (as defined)? Did you have the same procedures for their presence in areas of concurrent or proprietary jurisdiction, if you had them? If you disarmed local LE in concurrent or proprietary areas, from where did you derive your authority to do so?
are they serious? the government doesn't even trust its troops to carry weapons on bases? ONE PERSON with their sidearm could have stopped that murderous lunatic, ONE PERSON. If they don't even trust them to carry their M9 on their person on base, why do they trust them to carry SAWs and M4's and Javelins overseas. It just makes absolutely no sense. Gun free zones are some of the most dangerous places I've ever heard of. All it takes is one person, whether its a teacher with a snubbie at Columbine, a student with a piece at VT, or 1,000 armed servicemen at Ft. Hood.
More odd to see is MP/SP types having to remove magazines or download weapons when entering certain open access areas, such as AAFES facilities and chow halls.
As much as i disagree with the idea of gun-free and reduced gun zones on places like military bases, you know the places the house the ones we hold to maintaining our freedoms, I think the Ft Hood incident will make it worse. While we all know that an armed person could have stopped the incident with much less blood shed, the idea that "one of our own" did this will prolly always prevent future armed forces all over a base. You knowthere will be ONE person on a board somewhere that will bring that up and itll be over.
Garrisons are primarily training environments. Much of this training is done dry fire or with blank ammunition in a force on force manner. The introduction of live ammunition into a training environment has to be tight controlled as a safety precaution because of this. Just because people are running around post with weapons doesn't mean that they can due so safely with live ammo thrown into the mix.
patriot_man
11-10-09, 00:27
I believe that at least NCO's and officers should be allowed to carry a firearm on military base. I don't get the logic of not arming people at a military base. :confused:
decodeddiesel
11-10-09, 00:52
You have to understand that to the gun grabbers and the current administration this whole incident merely demonstrates that a "zero tolerance" gun control policy is required for all military installations.
Of course to rational people this make no sense, but no one ever accused the folks who designed this whole mess (gun grabbing politicians, PC "integration" specialists, high ranking military brass, etc.) of making sense.
decodeddiesel
11-10-09, 00:53
I believe that at least NCO's and officers should be allowed to carry a firearm on military base. I don't get the logic of not arming people at a military base. :confused:
The shooter was a field grade officer. :confused:
ThirdWatcher
11-10-09, 01:32
I don't remember what kind of jurisdiction we had on the main post at Ft. Bragg. The only time I remember seeing NCSHP was when they were contacting accident victims at Womack Army Hospital. We partnered with local LE (town patrol, drug task force, etc) so the idea of taking firearms never occurred to us. Like good LEO's everywhere, they were only a threat to the criminal element (and a lot of them were veterans).
One when we were down at Eglin AFB, they wouldn't let us in the BX without surrendering our 1911's (even though we cleared them before entering the building). We refused and instead took turns going inside (while our partners waited outside with our pistols). I just assumed every other on duty LEO felt the same way about being disarmed.
Off-duty soldiers not carrying weapons around is probably a good idea. You ever notice that most of the times soldiers have their weapons out, there is an NCO present? This is for a good reason. We wouldn't have an Army left if it wasn't for the NCO Corps.
This tragedy (like most) was totally preventable and intervention should have been taken BEFORE this occurred.
Combat_Diver
11-10-09, 01:37
One big thing I looked forward to after retiring was to be a citizen again and not a second class citizen with very few freedoms in the military.
CD
ThirdWatcher
11-10-09, 05:51
One big thing I looked forward to after retiring was to be a citizen again and not a second class citizen with very few freedoms in the military.
CD
Kinda ironic, isn't it?
The amazing thing about the Ft. Hood shooting is that the only thing that stopped it was another gun.
rifleman2000
11-10-09, 09:15
The amazing thing about the Ft. Hood shooting is that the only thing that stopped it was another gun.
This is a lesson incapable of penetrating our leaders' thick skulls.
Part of it is liability also. A leader would rather have a "gun free" zone so they have no liability than to permit guns and risk blame for incidents. It is politics. We suffer, our Soldiers die, and our leaders have clean hands.
Littlelebowski
11-10-09, 10:00
are they serious?
the government doesn't even trust its troops to carry weapons on bases? ONE PERSON with their sidearm could have stopped that murderous lunatic, ONE PERSON. If they don't even trust them to carry their M9 on their person on base, why do they trust them to carry SAWs and M4's and Javelins overseas. It just makes absolutely no sense. Gun free zones are some of the most dangerous places I've ever heard of. All it takes is one person, whether its a teacher with a snubbie at Columbine, a student with a piece at VT, or 1,000 armed servicemen at Ft. Hood.
You're preaching to the choir. Not sure how this is news to folks on here.
The shooter was a field grade officer. :confused:
And was surrounded by and shot at a hell of a lot of NCOs and officers, I'm guessing. He wasn't saying that NCOs and up should be able to carry as a way to have prevented the shooting outright, but as a way to terminate it as quickly as possible. Hasan proved the point once again that Gun Free Zones only disarm those who are not inclined to kill people.
decodeddiesel
11-10-09, 10:54
And was surrounded by and shot at a hell of a lot of NCOs and officers, I'm guessing. He wasn't saying that NCOs and up should be able to carry as a way to have prevented the shooting outright, but as a way to terminate it as quickly as possible. Hasan proved the point once again that Gun Free Zones only disarm those who are not inclined to kill people.
Yes I completely understand what you and everyone else is saying about this, and I agree with you.
I am looking at it from the perspective of the senior .mil brass and politicians who are in the words of BHO "looking at ways of preventing this from ever happening again". You must understand that to them this was an officer doing the shooting and therefor arming officers and NCO would only make this happen more often. I'm telling you this whole thing will result in a strict zero tolerance gun zones for all of our military bases, and more than likely "Islamic awareness training" so that no one gets the idea in their head that Islamic people are the enemy. :rolleyes:
Yes I completely understand what you and everyone else is saying about this, and I agree with you.
I am looking at it from the perspective of the senior .mil brass and politicians who are in the words of BHO "looking at ways of preventing this from ever happening again". You must understand that to them this was an officer doing the shooting and therefor arming officers and NCO would only make this happen more often. I'm telling you this whole thing will result in a strict zero tolerance gun zones for all of our military bases, and more than likely "Islamic awareness training" so that no one gets the idea in their head that Islamic people are the enemy. :rolleyes:
I'm tracking you now.
And you are right; as evidenced by the comments of Gen Casey and CSM Coleman among others.
18 U.S.C. § 930 : US Code - Section 930: Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities states that it is illegal to have a firearm on federal property. It has been this way for decades. Here is a link to the US Code. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/930 Installation Commanders allow provisions for transporting weapons for sporting uses. Firearms are also allowed in family quarters. Single soldiers must turn in their firearms to the Arms room or secure them off post. Of course if you live in the barracks and want to go shooting over the weekend you may be hosed. Your commander has the authority to deny you access to your weapon that is secured in his arms room. Most COs don't want the hassle or security risk that is associated with opening the arms room on the weekend when the chain of command isn't around (don't want any select fire weapons wandering off).
I am stationed in TX and my point of contention is this. The state of TX says I can legally carry a concealed weapon in my privately owned vehicle (POV) or rental car for that matter. The problem is that I have to commute to the installation and I spend most of my time there. I have a federal law that doesn't match up with state law or the current trends regarding firearms. Many southern states have expanded the definition and coverage of the Castle law to include a persons POV. Most of our military installations are in the South and you can see how this becomes a point of contention. Most installations have Rod and Gun clubs (Fort Bliss's has the best I've seen in 22 years). Hell Fort Knox started selling guns in the PX back in 2006 and yes you could use your Star card to buy them. So soldiers and federal employees are in a tight spot. We need Federal law to reflect the rights of the states that we live in. I encourage everyone to right your Congressman and Senator and encourage them to enact legislation that will guarantee military service members the rights that they have earned.
That's interesting...
Was your installation classified entirely federal exclusive (as defined)? Did you have the same procedures for their presence in areas of concurrent or proprietary jurisdiction, if you had them? If you disarmed local LE in concurrent or proprietary areas, from where did you derive your authority to do so?
All active installations and some National Guard Camps are Federal Installations. Consequently, installation security can disarm local and state police agencies since they are on federal property. We tend not to do this because installation security and emergency personnel must and do train/work together as an integrated team. I work at Brooke Army Medical Center and we treat many civilian emergencies especially traumas. We get quite a few citizens (and some illegals) who have been injured during a criminal event. These patients are placed under guard and San Antonio PD provides the guards.
I plan on using this in my letters:
.
...( Snip for brevity)......
Commanders allow provisions for transporting weapons for sporting uses. Firearms are also allowed in family quarters
....( SNP).....
Most installations have Rod and Gun clubs (Fort Bliss's has the best I've seen in 22 years)
...( SNP).....
Hell Fort Knox started selling guns in the PX back in 2006 and yes you could use your Star card to buy them. So soldiers and federal employees are in a tight spot. We need Federal law to reflect the rights of the states that we live in. I encourage everyone to right your Congressman and Senator and encourage them to enact legislation that will guarantee military service members the rights that they have earned.
Gun rights have won Congressional majorities in almost every vote recorded for the last two years.
Congress has not passed a significant gun-grabber bill in 15 years.
The federal law is outdated. Congress can change that.
All of the House and 1/3 of the Senate seats are up for grabs next year.
Some of them will listen.
All active installations and some National Guard Camps are Federal Installations. Consequently, installation security can disarm local and state police agencies since they are on federal property.
That's the most often tendered explanation but is not entirely correct. It depends upon how the property the installation (or facility) is on is classified. Certain classifications give the military exclusive domain. Others leave state and local governments of statutory jurisdiction unencumbered. Those classifications may be temporary or permanent. Short: it depends.
Based on the info in the original quoted examples I commented on, it would seem that the arrangment locals had with the MPs were a matter of policy and agreement, rather than law. It's curious local LE would subordinate themselves in that way.
It depends is right!
In my experience jurisdiction has very little to do with it. I have lived/worked on federal property that was exclusive, concurrent, or proprietary and often a mix of all three. Until next year (02/10) jurisdiction has had no impact on CCW and even very little on LE off-duty carry. Smart money says keep an eye on the NPS's new legislation. If anything was going to be a starting point for changing the mil policy that would be my bet.
That's the most often tendered explanation but is not entirely correct. It depends upon how the property the installation (or facility) is on is classified. Certain classifications give the military exclusive domain. Others leave state and local governments of statutory jurisdiction unencumbered. Those classifications may be temporary or permanent. Short: it depends.
Based on the info in the original quoted examples I commented on, it would seem that the arrangment locals had with the MPs were a matter of policy and agreement, rather than law. It's curious local LE would subordinate themselves in that way.
I guess I have only been assigned to installations where the military has exclusive domain. Do you have any examples of military installations where local and state government statutory jurisdiction is unencumbered. I do understand where you are coming from though. Fort Sam has regulations that sprout from local, state, and federal law. It makes it tough to figure out which trumps the other. I always wondered what would happen if a local police officer tried to stop me for speeding on post. Does he have the authority to ticket me?
It depends is right!
In my experience jurisdiction has very little to do with it. I have lived/worked on federal property that was exclusive, concurrent, or proprietary and often a mix of all three. Until next year (02/10) jurisdiction has had no impact on CCW and even very little on LE off-duty carry. Smart money says keep an eye on the NPS's new legislation. If anything was going to be a starting point for changing the mil policy that would be my bet.
What is the NPS? I just reread the USC Code. It sounds like a commander can authorize their personnel to conceal carry the question is do they authorize conceal carry of issue weapons or personal weapons. I know that the operators in Group CCW on post.
It depends is right! In my experience jurisdiction has very little to do with it.
Actually, it has everything to do with it.
I have lived/worked on federal property
The term "federal property" is a bit nebulous, as different types and uses change things a bit.
Until next year (02/10) jurisdiction has had no impact on CCW and even very little on LE off-duty carry.
My part of the discussion was pertaining to on-duty LEOs being disarmed by military LE. CCW is a different matter entirely. The question of "off-duty" LEOs is an interesting one, though. It would depend on what obligations of law or policy would be imposed on the LEO, and how each entity understood them. It occurs, however. There are many LEOs that are dependent spouses of AD members, as well as reserve/auxiliary officers, residing on installations.
Smart money says keep an eye on the NPS's new legislation. If anything was going to be a starting point for changing the mil policy that would be my bet.
I believe it will have zero impact on the installation carry question, as it's a different animal altogether. Here's hoping, though.
I guess I have only been assigned to installations where the military has exclusive domain. Do you have any examples of military installations where local and state government statutory jurisdiction is unencumbered.
It would be any installation where there is jurisdiction other than exclusive, absent some of the temporary classifications that be utilized for military and national security purposes.
It makes it tough to figure out which trumps the other.
With the exception of the exclusive issue (and even then, that can be ceded temporarily), they don't really trump each other as much as complement. Those (on both sides) trying to envision how one trumps the other is how you'd get mil cops disarming local LEOs in non-exclusive areas. :D
I always wondered what would happen if a local police officer tried to stop me for speeding on post. Does he have the authority to ticket me?
In a non-exclusive area, there would be nothing, legally, that would prevent it. If and how they do so would depend on what operating agreements are in place with the installation. One entity will often cede parts of authority to the other to either keep things simple, and/or avoid complex questions such as these. (They can also confer some authority on each other, to meet other goals, adding more depth to the issue.)
If you're feeling froggy and want to have fun, address these question, in identical form, to the installaton commander's office, the installation property manager, the JAG office, the MCIO, the MP/SPs, local civ LE, and the local civ prosecutor's office. You'll get a variety of answers, blank stares, or b-b-buts.
If you're feeling froggy and want to have fun, address these question, in identical form, to the installaton commander's office, the installation property manager, the JAG office, the MCIO, the MP/SPs, local civ LE, and the local civ prosecutor's office. You'll get a variety of answers, blank stares, or b-b-buts.
I have a hard enough time getting a straight CHL answer from the Provost Marshal and SJA.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-11-09, 19:21
In regards to Black Helicopter conspiracies and posse comitatus violations, after reading this thread, I see that it far easier for a civilain to invade an army base than for the Army to invade the rest of the country. Add in the grandmas and grandpas that got onto the mil base in the Pac Northwest, sheesh. No wonder we can't control our borders.
Are we going to see more MPs and prehaps some kind of special armed 'detail' or something on military bases now?
An absolute shame.
Skintop- we were on an exclusive federally controlled installation inside of the defined installation perimeter, we exercised joint jurisdiction in some of the adjacent unicorporated parts of the county that adjoined the base.
We had our own SRT, as well to respond to special situations, we had a great relationship with the locals though and did joint training all the time, the Post Commander just did not want any weapons on post not under direct military control after 9/11, before I got out the policies had been somewhat relaxed, since being cops they were the good guys after all.
Concealed carry depends on location, even the state law in Texas prohibits carry on certain types of governmental properties especially federal property, while also stating that the vehicle is an extention of the home.
18 U.S.C. § 930 : US Code - Section 930: Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities states that it is illegal to have a firearm on federal property.
Not so. 18USC930 does not address Federal property, but Federal facilities (buildings) specifically.
Federal property such as military installations are addressed by other laws, installation commander policy, etc., as you and other have discussed.
Not so. 18USC930 does not address Federal property, but Federal facilities (buildings) specifically.
Federal property such as military installations are addressed by other laws, installation commander policy, etc., as you and other have discussed.
I took that qoute from Quantico's web site. It was posted on their shooting club website. http://www.quanticoshootingclub.com/qsc.php?view=transport I did some more research for other installations and the policy letters tend to site Army Regulations more than anything else. I did find out that Fort Drum would be a shitty assignment if you have several handguns. New York state requires you to have a hand gun permit in order to own a hand gun. Owning a hand gun without the permit is an automatic felony. Really sucks when the military is at the mercy of states with more stringent regulations than the state you are leaving. The way the Fort Drum Reg is written soldiers are highly discouraged from bringing hand guns to New York state altogether. Fort Carson makes you register any fire amrs that you own that are within 60 miles of the installation. That seems excessive to me and I doubt I would register any firearms that I own if I live off post.
What is the NPS? I just reread the USC Code. It sounds like a commander can authorize their personnel to conceal carry the question is do they authorize conceal carry of issue weapons or personal weapons. I know that the operators in Group CCW on post.
From my experience anyone authorized to carry concealed must carry an issued weapon and ammo. However, I don't know for sure whether that is the law or commander's discretion as well. I'm in the process of lobbying for carrying concealed right now, I just have to get my immediate chain of command on board but that shouldn't be too difficult. I doubt it will change the commander's mind about bringing personal weapons on base, though.
For off-duty LEO, they must keep their weapons locked in their vehicles. Given concurrent jurisdictions, on-duty local LEO have no such restrictions and actually carry out some important policing functions should they arise.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.