UPDATE - Gun-Free Zones - US Military Installations

JonnyP · December 12, 2009, 04:34 PM

I just received a letter from Senator Richard Shelby (R., Alabama). It reads:

"Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding personal firearms on military installations.

I have contacted the DOD on your behalf and have asked them to respond to your concerns. You should expect a reply to your concerns directly from the agency in a timely manner. Please do not hesitate to contact me about this or other matters in the future."

Senator Shelby included in the envelope a copy of the letter he wrote to the DOD. It's addressed to Mr. Daniel R. Stanley, Deputy Assistant, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C. It reads:

"Dear Mr. Stanley,

Please review the enclosed [copy of my correspondence to Senator Shelby] and address the concerns raised. I have notified my constituent to expect a timely reply directly from you."

Well, there you have it. We'll see...

Jonny

Magi · December 12, 2009, 05:03 PM

Dont hold you breath.

raimius · December 12, 2009, 07:24 PM

Well, sounds like you've got a pretty good Senator there!

I tend to get form e-mails from mine.

johnwilliamson062 · December 12, 2009, 08:27 PM

If you contact them through their e-mail form...

JonnyP · December 22, 2009, 08:54 AM

Just got a reply from Congressman Parker Griffith, my representative from the 5th District of Alabama. The letter is over a page long, so I won't retype it here. But there is one statement he made to me I'd like to share. It reads:

"As the investigation of the Fort Hood tragedy continues and Congress reviews our nation's policies regarding the protection of our nation's soldiers and military facilities, I will remember your strong opinions."

Assuming the "investigation" is actually being done to search for answers rather than blame, and assuming as "Congress reviews our nation's policies" they intend to actually do something about it, I believe now is the time for our voices to be heard.

I for one will continue to do what I can, but the more people who speak up, the better.

What say all?

Molon-Labe · December 22, 2009, 10:02 AM

I agree with you JonnyP. Good to hear that you heard from your representative. I just wrote to my representative again yesterday after receiving a BS e-mail response to my first letter. We'll see what happens this time. Haven't heard a word from either of my two senators. But, you're right. It's going to take many more than just the two of us to get their attention.

thallub · December 22, 2009, 12:35 PM

There is another thread running on this subject.

The US military is a dictatorship: It has to be that way. You have no Second Amendment rights on a military post. Your First Amendment rights are also very restricted. The US military comes under the Executive Branch. Neither congress nor the US Supreme Court will fight the military when it comes to the carrying of private weapons on post.

The SCOTUS traditionally has not intervened in military matters unless the military violated a statute or regulation.

A good read on the subject:

http://www.answers.com/topic/citizen...n-the-military

JonnyP · December 23, 2009, 09:06 AM

True, the military is a dictatorship. True, service members give up certain rights to some extent by volunteering to be in the military. But nobody's talking about changing the military command structure. Nobody's talking about pitting Congress or the Supreme Court against the DOD. The simple question is this: Why is there a difference between off-post and on-post? I know there are some exceptions, but most service members do not have to give up their 2nd Amendment rights while off-post, so why can't they exercise them on-post?

It's interesting to note that in the Israeli armed forces, all members are required to be armed at all times whether on-post or off, whether on-duty or off. There doesn't seem to be a problem there.

This is all about personal protection, whether service member, government civilian, or contractor. Now we have situation where the entire world knows our bases are full of unarmed people, making them a prime target as evidenced by what happened at Fort Hood. Why do you think he chose to commit this act at that time and place?

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. It makes no sense to me that we can send a soldier to the sandbox and say to him, "See that terrorist over there trying to kill you? Take him out." Now bring that same soldier back home, on a military base no less, and we have to say to him, "See that terrorist over there trying to kill you? Run to your office, close and lock the door, turn out the lights, hide under your desk, and call 911."

Is this really the image we want to present to would-be murderers?

As for non-military members on post, why can I take my gun with me while shopping or eating at a fast food restaurant off-post, but not on-post where, now, there is a greater chance of becoming a target?

Nobody's trying to usurp commanders' authorities or responsibilities. Just don't want to be a sitting duck...

thallub · December 23, 2009, 01:16 PM

I am retired Army. Jonny P, you are bucking US Army policy and it will get you nowhere.

JonnyP · December 24, 2009, 08:42 AM

Well, I am retired Air Force, and I can tell you this policy is not unique to the US Army. Perhaps many believe I am "bucking US Army policy," but I don't believe the policy was ever intended to allow soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, or civilians to be mere target practice for cowardly terrorists or other murderers. You are absolutely correct in that I just might fail in my meager attempts at change. But I, and everyone who feels the same way I do, most certainly WILL fail if nobody tries.

"Lead, follow, or get out of the way..."

JonnyP · December 24, 2009, 11:50 AM

To some, using the phrase, "bucking US Army policy" in this case might imply I am knowingly carrying a weapon on post against policy. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I am not now, nor have I ever carried a weapon on post. I am however advocating a change to the existing policy so that I may do so in the future.

December 12, 2009, 04:34 PM	#1
JonnyP Senior Member Join Date: October 16, 2009 Posts: 195	UPDATE - Gun-Free Zones - US Military Installations I just received a letter from Senator Richard Shelby (R., Alabama). It reads: "Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding personal firearms on military installations. I have contacted the DOD on your behalf and have asked them to respond to your concerns. You should expect a reply to your concerns directly from the agency in a timely manner. Please do not hesitate to contact me about this or other matters in the future." Senator Shelby included in the envelope a copy of the letter he wrote to the DOD. It's addressed to Mr. Daniel R. Stanley, Deputy Assistant, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C. It reads: "Dear Mr. Stanley, Please review the enclosed [copy of my correspondence to Senator Shelby] and address the concerns raised. I have notified my constituent to expect a timely reply directly from you." Well, there you have it. We'll see... Jonny

December 24, 2009, 11:50 AM	#11
JonnyP Senior Member Join Date: October 16, 2009 Posts: 195	...and just to clarify To some, using the phrase, "bucking US Army policy" in this case might imply I am knowingly carrying a weapon on post against policy. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I am not now, nor have I ever carried a weapon on post. I am however advocating a change to the existing policy so that I may do so in the future.

December 12, 2009, 05:03 PM	#2
Magi Junior member Join Date: July 5, 2009 Location: Earth Posts: 127	Dont hold you breath.

December 12, 2009, 07:24 PM	#3
raimius Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2008 Posts: 2,199	Well, sounds like you've got a pretty good Senator there! I tend to get form e-mails from mine.

December 12, 2009, 08:27 PM	#4
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,995	If you contact them through their e-mail form...

December 22, 2009, 08:54 AM	#5
JonnyP Senior Member Join Date: October 16, 2009 Posts: 195	Just got a reply from Congressman Parker Griffith, my representative from the 5th District of Alabama. The letter is over a page long, so I won't retype it here. But there is one statement he made to me I'd like to share. It reads: "As the investigation of the Fort Hood tragedy continues and Congress reviews our nation's policies regarding the protection of our nation's soldiers and military facilities, I will remember your strong opinions." Assuming the "investigation" is actually being done to search for answers rather than blame, and assuming as "Congress reviews our nation's policies" they intend to actually do something about it, I believe now is the time for our voices to be heard. I for one will continue to do what I can, but the more people who speak up, the better. What say all?

December 22, 2009, 10:02 AM	#6
Molon-Labe Junior Member Join Date: December 13, 2009 Posts: 5	I agree with you JonnyP. Good to hear that you heard from your representative. I just wrote to my representative again yesterday after receiving a BS e-mail response to my first letter. We'll see what happens this time. Haven't heard a word from either of my two senators. But, you're right. It's going to take many more than just the two of us to get their attention.

December 22, 2009, 12:35 PM	#7
thallub Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2007 Location: South Western OK Posts: 3,112	There is another thread running on this subject. The US military is a dictatorship: It has to be that way. You have no Second Amendment rights on a military post. Your First Amendment rights are also very restricted. The US military comes under the Executive Branch. Neither congress nor the US Supreme Court will fight the military when it comes to the carrying of private weapons on post. The SCOTUS traditionally has not intervened in military matters unless the military violated a statute or regulation. A good read on the subject: http://www.answers.com/topic/citizen...n-the-military

December 23, 2009, 09:06 AM	#8
JonnyP Senior Member Join Date: October 16, 2009 Posts: 195	True, the military is a dictatorship. True, service members give up certain rights to some extent by volunteering to be in the military. But nobody's talking about changing the military command structure. Nobody's talking about pitting Congress or the Supreme Court against the DOD. The simple question is this: Why is there a difference between off-post and on-post? I know there are some exceptions, but most service members do not have to give up their 2nd Amendment rights while off-post, so why can't they exercise them on-post? It's interesting to note that in the Israeli armed forces, all members are required to be armed at all times whether on-post or off, whether on-duty or off. There doesn't seem to be a problem there. This is all about personal protection, whether service member, government civilian, or contractor. Now we have situation where the entire world knows our bases are full of unarmed people, making them a prime target as evidenced by what happened at Fort Hood. Why do you think he chose to commit this act at that time and place? I've said this before, and I'll say it again. It makes no sense to me that we can send a soldier to the sandbox and say to him, "See that terrorist over there trying to kill you? Take him out." Now bring that same soldier back home, on a military base no less, and we have to say to him, "See that terrorist over there trying to kill you? Run to your office, close and lock the door, turn out the lights, hide under your desk, and call 911." Is this really the image we want to present to would-be murderers? As for non-military members on post, why can I take my gun with me while shopping or eating at a fast food restaurant off-post, but not on-post where, now, there is a greater chance of becoming a target? Nobody's trying to usurp commanders' authorities or responsibilities. Just don't want to be a sitting duck...

December 23, 2009, 01:16 PM	#9
thallub Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2007 Location: South Western OK Posts: 3,112	I am retired Army. Jonny P, you are bucking US Army policy and it will get you nowhere.

December 24, 2009, 08:42 AM	#10
JonnyP Senior Member Join Date: October 16, 2009 Posts: 195	Well, I am retired Air Force, and I can tell you this policy is not unique to the US Army. Perhaps many believe I am "bucking US Army policy," but I don't believe the policy was ever intended to allow soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, or civilians to be mere target practice for cowardly terrorists or other murderers. You are absolutely correct in that I just might fail in my meager attempts at change. But I, and everyone who feels the same way I do, most certainly WILL fail if nobody tries. "Lead, follow, or get out of the way..."