Pentagon to adopt uniform rules on guns. - Page 2
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 55

Thread: Pentagon to adopt uniform rules on guns.

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Gulf Breeze FL
    Posts
    64
    Funny I was going to start writting my Reps about the same issue. If I read the DC case right then all bases are federal land so shouldn't they already fall under that opinion? And for the most part Military members who would want to carry did well in the fire arms training. I have a 45 minute commute and have to do it unarmed everyday because of the way the rules are right now.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomboy007 View Post
    Big ole +1! Not only should active duty members be allowed to be armed, I might go so far as requiring all active duty members on base be required to have at least a sidearm at all times. If our soldiers can not be trusted to carry a sidearm, then they should not be in the service at all. Period. That is all.
    +1. That pretty much says it all. I have nothing further to add.
    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

  4. #13
    wolfhunter Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ricbak View Post
    They were not Marines, were they?
    Nope, most of them are Doggies, Squids or Airedales. But I think many of them may be trainable even at that, lol.

  5. #14
    I'd love to see a link to the original article that the OP is on about. I have no clue what the subject is that was covered. Anyone got a linky...?

    Quote Originally Posted by xzeler8 View Post
    Sorry, but that makes zero sense. What part of that is ok? Ok so long as you can carry? If they are going to grant the right (which I would love to see) how do you justify giving the right to one group while not allowing the other (read: the people in the actual military that work on the installation)?
    I've wished for a long time that the DoD would allow AD Military, DoD Civilians and Retirees who have a CHL (or equivalent) to carry on-base. For the USAF - and I'm fairly certain that the majority of AD bases are the same - , the only way you can legally bring a firearm on to an AF base is to live in base housing or have a license to hunt on-base (there are a number of bases which do this stateside during deer season). Even then, if you live in base housing you're expected to register your firearm(s) w/Security Forces. Otherwise, you have to sign your wepaon in to the SF armory.

    The shooting at Ft. Hood, as well as the Shooting of a US Army Soldier in Little Rock (the son of a friend) have raised the concern with AD USAF personnel here at Little Rock AFB. This incident proved that when US Military personnel are wearing the uniform going to/from their duty day, we become targets for home-grown terrorists. While it might not have made a major difference that particular day here in Little Rock, it might have at Ft. Hood, as well as possibly in some future incident. I'd hope it wouldn't happen, but with these and other incidents over the years, you definitely can't rule it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boomboy007 View Post
    Big ole +1! Not only should active duty members be allowed to be armed, I might go so far as requiring all active duty members on base be required to have at least a sidearm at all times. If our soldiers can not be trusted to carry a sidearm, then they should not be in the service at all. Period. That is all.
    While I don't have a problem w/the spirit of this thinking, it seems to me that it wouldn't be required in most instances. In fact, it would require additional manning in most instances I can think of for USAF personnel, as well as additional funding spent on facilities capable of securing weapons when they wouldn't be required or couldn't be carried off-base. Per USAF Regulations, you can't just throw your M-9 or M-16 in your locker, make sure the lock is good and then go out to eat, see a movie or go to a club off-base. It has to be held in a specific type of secure location - an armory - or be in a room w/access controlled 24/7 by an armed guard.

    There's also a matter of environment to consider. It's one thing to arm all of our US Military Personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan - or some few other locations - but it's something completely different to do so here in-CONUS. Most all of those locations don't allow alcohol, whereas you generally have pretty easy access at almost any other assignment, be it CONUS or O-CONUS. Alcohol and firearms, anyone...?

    I'm not familiar w/how it works in the other Armed Services, but know that it's also a matter of budget for the USAF. Our mission doesn't require every Airman to carry a sidearm as part of his/her duties, even when Deployed to most overseas locations. As such, the USAF doesn't have one weapon for each of us at each CONUS base.

    Anyhow, I like the spirit of the thinking behind having our folks armed stateside, but at the same time don't think it's really necessary for the majority of US Mlitary personnel. Nor do I think it's the best thing to do.

    Allowing us to bring our personally owned firearms on-base and keep them in our vehicles, on the other hand, doesn't sound all that bad. The DoD could even require us to have taken a CHL class and carry a license to be authorized to bring them on-base in such a fashion and it wouldn't bother me. Hell, they could even limit it to NCO's and Officers so as to ensure that someone who's a career Airman, Marine, Sailor or Soldier - and thus likely more mature - has such weapons in their possession makes sense to me.

    JMNSHO as an AD USAF NCO.

    .
    Arkansas Concealed Carry Instructor #12-751

  6. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Griffworks View Post
    I'd love to see a link to the original article that the OP is on about. I have no clue what the subject is that was covered. Anyone got a linky...?
    This is my best guess: NRA-ILA :: Pentagon to adopt uniform rules on guns
    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Griffworks View Post
    While I don't have a problem w/the spirit of this thinking, it seems to me that it wouldn't be required in most instances. In fact, it would require additional manning in most instances I can think of for USAF personnel, as well as additional funding spent on facilities capable of securing weapons when they wouldn't be required or couldn't be carried off-base. Per USAF Regulations, you can't just throw your M-9 or M-16 in your locker, make sure the lock is good and then go out to eat, see a movie or go to a club off-base. It has to be held in a specific type of secure location - an armory - or be in a room w/access controlled 24/7 by an armed guard.
    Nice to hear from somebody who has an actual clue about the matter. The problem with most of the posters on this forum is they either don't or can't think these things through the microcosm of their very limited perspective. It's 2A or bust, nothing else even enters their consciousness.

    I believe their is room to allow servicemembers concealed carry under limited circumstances based on similar rules found in the civilian world. Overseas it gets a lot more complicated. But within the constraints of training, qualification, need and specific circumstances, I believe DoD does have some wiggle room here.

    To the all-or-none crowd: Get a life, grow up and learn more about the things you like to post on. You get a little annoying to those of us who have been there, done that.

  8. #17
    C&L, I guess it should be pointed out that the post that Griff was responding to stated "I MIGHT go so far as requiring..."

    As for "2A or bust" or "all or nothing crowd"... May I remind you:
    The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.~Patrick Henry
    No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.~Thomas Jefferson
    To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.~Richard Henry Lee
    The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good
    I could go on, but if you don't get my point by now, you never will. The Founding Fathers seem to me to have been a part of the 2A or bust, all or nothing crowd you continue to criticize.
    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

  9. #18
    handgonnetoter Guest
    When I was in the Marines, they made me check in my personal guns into the armory while I was on base. It did not bother me too much, but when I got them out during my final check out they were scratched up and looked like they had been fired. Was not very happy over that.

  10. #19
    wolfhunter Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by handgonnetoter View Post
    When I was in the Marines, they made me check in my personal guns into the armory while I was on base. It did not bother me too much, but when I got them out during my final check out they were scratched up and looked like they had been fired. Was not very happy over that.
    When I was in, I could understand some points behind the reasoning of not allowing servicemen to keep firearms in their barracks rooms. I never understood any reason for keeping them out of base housing. I also saw cases where armorers handled Privately Owned firearms as if they were armory property that they weren't accountable for.

  11. #20
    For those who don't know, when we Enlist or receive a Commission in the US Armed Forces we get a whole new "Bill of Rights", so to speak. The gist of it is that we still pretty much enjoy the same Rights and Freedoms as everyone else, just that we're subject to more stringent, somewhat confining Rights than your average US Citizen enjoys. More than anything, tho, it means that we're subject to different "laws" in a lot of instances and that the punishments can sometimes be more severe than what the equivalent might be to a civilian. A lot of those regulations (i.e. "laws") aren't designed to purposely restrain our Rights, so much as to allow for good order and discipline to be more easily understood, adhered to and enforced.

    That being said, everyone's entitled to their opinion on the issue. Well, unless the laws in that country forbid it. I don't have to agree with the opinions of others, just should stop and think to respect that other folks have an opinion that might well be different. No matter how silly I might find it, I try to be respectful and like to think that I usually succeed at such an endeavour.

    Quote Originally Posted by utimmer43 View Post
    Ah, thanks! That actually links to another article by the Associated Press, hosted by Google.com:

    Pentagon to adopt uniform rules on guns
    By ANNE GEARAN (AP) Apr 15, 2010

    WASHINGTON The Pentagon will adopt a broad policy governing how privately owned guns can be carried or stored at military installations following the shooting deaths of 13 people last year at Fort Hood, Texas.

    A disgruntled Army doctor is charged in the deaths.

    Maj. Nidal Hasan had little or no access to military firearms in his job as a psychologist, but was able to buy two handguns and bring them onto the base.

    Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered this week that a new comprehensive policy be developed to cover all branches of the military and its bases and offices. The standardized policy would replace or buttress a patchwork of regulations adopted by each service or individual military installation.

    The weapons policy is among recommendations for security and administrative upgrades released by the Pentagon on Thursday. Gates ordered that an interim weapons policy be in force by June, and a permanent one is due early next year.

    The new policy is expected to mirror restrictions already in place at some military installations that, for example, require guns brought onto a base to be registered with military police.

    Gates also ordered changes in the way tips and information in criminal investigations are shared, and directed an internal review of personnel policies on health care records. An outside panel said those policies can prevent higher-ups from knowing about behavior or other problems that might be red flags.

    Also Thursday, Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins R-Maine, said they will send subpoenas to the Pentagon and Justice Department if the administration doesn't provide more information on the Fort Hood case by Monday.

    Lieberman and Collins the two top senators on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee launched their investigation into the Fort Hood shootings five months ago. They claim the administration is stonewalling their requests for access to FBI agents, documents or Hasan's personnel file from the Defense Department.

    "Disclosure of some of the material you have requested could compromise the pending prosecution," administration lawyers wrote to the two senators this week.

    The administration said it does not want to generate pretrial publicity that could taint a jury pool or make witnesses reluctant to cooperate, and wants to avoid a barrage of defense lawyer requests that could force the government to reveal information it wants to save for a criminal trial.

    Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Defense Department is moving quickly to identify and address problems highlighted by the Hasan case, and is balancing its obligations to protect soldiers, prosecute crimes and work with congressional overseers.

    "We are doing that in an expeditious, fair, reasonable and thorough manner," Whitman said.

    Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
    There are a few related links at the bottom of the page, as well. Mostly, this just sounds like DoD will set up a standardized across all Services for dealing w/personally owned weapons. Every USAF CONUS installation that I've been on thus far has been standard in that you can't just carry your firearm on-base w/o registering it, particularly if you're a civilian - family member, retired, DoD Civilian or guest of any of the above - and that the only way you don't have to keep your firearm in the armory is if you live in base housing.


    Quote Originally Posted by wolfhunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by handgonnetoter View Post
    When I was in the Marines, they made me check in my personal guns into the armory while I was on base. It did not bother me too much, but when I got them out during my final check out they were scratched up and looked like they had been fired. Was not very happy over that.
    When I was in, I could understand some points behind the reasoning of not allowing servicemen to keep firearms in their barracks rooms. I never understood any reason for keeping them out of base housing. I also saw cases where armorers handled Privately Owned firearms as if they were armory property that they weren't accountable for.
    Per USAF CONUS Reg's, you can have a POF in your on-base housing, provided it's not the dormitories. I take it that at USMC bases you weren't authorized personal firearms in base housing? As I've mentioned before, I have no clue how the other Services have mandated this in the past, but it seems that it should be changing shortly to be uniform across all branches of the US Armed Forces. I dn't think it's a bad thing for that to be a uniform set of DoD Policies/Regulatoins, but I just hope it doesn't end up being more restrictive because of that US Army Major at Ft. Hood.

    Should it turn out that way, I'll definitely be exercising my Rights and contacting my US Representative and Senator on the issue. I feel it should serve as an example as to WHY more US Armed Forces Personnel should be allowed to have personally owned firearms in their vehicles as they come on-base/post. Just require them to be left in their vehicle unless emergency circumstances require otherwise - and clearly define such circumstances.

    I mean, do you know how much of a pain it is when you want to go shoot after work, have to drive 30 minutes to your house, just to double-back half that distance to go to a shooting range?!? Yeah, I know I chose to live where I do, but it's just so danged inconvenient and kinda silly, given that the vast majority of folks who legally own firearms never - knowingly - do anything illegal w/them. Just require us to get a special DoD permit, y'know?

    OK, I'll quit cryin' now.



    Regardless, I've heard very similar horror stories about privately owned weapons kept in USAF Security Forces armories. Usually the same thing that handgonnetoter mentions - dinged up, dirty from having been fired by not cleaned, etc... One fella told me that his shotgun apparently had the brand-spankin'-new pistol grip he'd put on it prior to putting it in the armory replaced by an older and different grip. He filed a complaint, but I don't recall what he told me the status that ever came about. He was pretty hot about it, tho - understandbly so.

    .
    Arkansas Concealed Carry Instructor #12-751

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. NoBamaCare
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 228
    Last Post: 12-16-2010, 05:59 PM
  2. States exempting guns from rules now total 7
    By HK4U in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-13-2010, 08:09 AM
  3. Pentagon gun was from Tenn. police
    By theicemanmpls in forum LEO Encounters
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-17-2010, 09:33 PM
  4. Gun Rights in South Africa
    By utimmer43 in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-21-2010, 07:44 PM
  5. One man and his guns, guns and more guns
    By lukem in forum Nevada Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2008, 10:34 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast