The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 16, 2009, 04:08 PM   #1
Winston81
Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2009
Location: Tacoma, Wa
Posts: 15
Military Bases

I guess this is a question for MP's, or security forces on a military base..

I work on an air force base, and i see the sign outside the gate prohibiting the bringing of concealed weapons on base. I've been told that any weapon coming on base must be either taken straight to the base armory, or in-transit to one's home on base housing.

I've asked several of the security forces guys about these rules and heard different answers. I'm ok with not being able to conceal carry on base, i understand the rules put in place. However, this stops me from carrying during my personal time or keeping my firearm in my car, because i never know if i'll be out or able to drop my weapon off at home first before going to work.

I'd like to hear from anyone that knows specific rules or the regulations on this...
Winston81 is offline  
Old December 16, 2009, 04:23 PM   #2
NavyLT
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2006
Location: Oak Harbor, WA
Posts: 1,719
Find the base instruction regarding the specific base you are talking about. Each base will be a little bit different depending on the policies the CO of the base has set.

The rule at Tinker AFB, OK was that firearms were allowed to be transported by residents of base housing, they had to be registered with both the housing office and security, they had to be transported unloaded and fully visible, and could only be transported on a direct route with no stops between the housing unit and the gate to go on/off base.

What is guaranteed is that on base you are not going to be allowed to carry a firearm for personal protection.

What you want to ask the security office is what instruction governs weapons on base and ask to read the instruction.
NavyLT is offline  
Old December 16, 2009, 04:25 PM   #3
JonnyP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2009
Posts: 195
I have two threads about this issue. Please see "Gun-Free Zones - US Military Installations" and "UPDATE - Gun-Free Zones - US Military Installations."

The bottom line, as I have been able to determine, is that Clinton made it the law in 1993, though it may have been common practice long before then. Within the regulations reflecting this law, AR 190-14 for example, commanders have very little leeway but can authorize carrying under certain circumstances such as a specific threat to safety of personnel.

Some folks say it is up to commander discretion, but that may be a little bit of a stretch from what I think the law actually allows. I have yet to see any such "law" other than Army regs, and I have yet to discover any justification for it.

In any event, I hope to get some answers soon from the DOD with a little push from my senator (see the UPDATE thread).

I think there are many out there who just want us to go away. But if enough of us raise the BS flag, sooner or later we'll get the attention of someone in power willing to do the right thing.

Jonny
JonnyP is offline  
Old December 17, 2009, 08:20 AM   #4
Molon-Labe
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2009
Posts: 5
JonnyP:

AR 190-14 pertains to military police and law enforcement; AR 190-11 pertains to personally-owned firearms. The latter would appear to give base commanders a lot of leeway in rules regarding personally-owned firearms.

I think you are absolutely correct about enough of us raising the BS flag. Lots of luck in getting action from your senator. I wrote to both my senators and representative. One senator sent me a letter stating he could not support me; I have not heard from my other senator or my representative.
Molon-Labe is offline  
Old December 17, 2009, 09:03 AM   #5
JonnyP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2009
Posts: 195
Although I have not read AR 190-11 cover-to-cover, I looked at both regs after reading your post. I think I now understand the relationship between this reg and AR 190-14. Both relate to Military Police. I believe AR 190-14 deals more with personnel while AR 190-11 deals more with Arms, Ammunition, and Explosives (AA&E). Any leeway commanders have with regard to these regs appears to relate specifically to military police applications, as indicated on the cover of both regs, and I can find nothing which refers to personally owned/carried weapons.

The closest I've come to finding anything in our favor is from AR 190-14, para 2-2d, which states:

"DA military and civilian personnel may be authorized to carry firearms for pesonal protection when the responsible intelligence center identifies a credible and specific threat against DA personnel in that regional area."

There are a few other references to non law-enforcement personnel, but I believe the implication is that should the decision ever be made to allow others to carry weapons, weapons would be issued, not provided by personnel themselves. This would likely mean personnel would be required to report to a specific facility to draw their weapons upon arrival each day, then turn them back in before departing. This is precisely the procedure for law-enforcement personnel right now (so I've been told).

I also believe there has been an issue of semantics with many of these posts. When I refer to a "gun-free zone," I am speaking with regard to CCW of privately (not government) owned firearms. In that sense, military bases most certainly appear to meet that description. I realize allowing weapons on base for the purpose of hunting or storage would cause some to dispute the label of "gun-free zone." But again, any time this term has been used in the media it has referred to the inability to CCW for personal protection.

Whatever we call it, I simply do not understand why I can CCW off base but not on base, and I still can find no justification why this is so other than, for example, "because that's the way the government wants it."

JonnyP
JonnyP is offline  
Old December 17, 2009, 10:59 AM   #6
Molon-Labe
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2009
Posts: 5
Here is a link to AR 190-11.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6529072/Ar...and-Explosives

Paragraph 4-5 addresses personally-owned firearms. Those of you familiar with Army installations know that post regulations go way beyond DA requirements. Yes, both 190-14 and 190-11 read 'Military Police' preceding the title, that is because the Provost Marshall General is the proponent of both manuals.
Molon-Labe is offline  
Old December 17, 2009, 12:23 PM   #7
JonnyP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2009
Posts: 195
I suppose I should clarify. Yes, para 4-5 of AR 190-11 concerns personally owned firearms. But almost every reference to them is in regard to storage, inventory, etc. The very first paragraph of AR 190-11 states:

"This regulation prescribes standards and criteria for the physical security of sensitive conventional arms, ammunition, and explosives (AA&E)..."

I can find no reference to using personally owned firearms for personal defense on military installations. The "leeway" given to commanders seems to refer to how they set up procedures for the physical security of personally owned firearms on their base, not on whether to allow those who work on the base to carry them for personal protection.
JonnyP is offline  
Old December 20, 2009, 09:33 PM   #8
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,315
Army regs are interesting, but not very applicable to Air Force Rules.

I would try some of the AFIs in the 31-xyz series.
raimius is offline  
Old December 21, 2009, 08:26 AM   #9
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,075
Very little has changed in the past 50 years. In 1959 I reported to my first US Army EOD unit at Ft. Bragg with private weapons. My weapons were locked in the unit arms room along with our issued military weapons. I had a private weapons card that was put on the arms rack when my weapons were out.

I often hunt and shoot on Ft. Sill, OK. Only LEOS are allowed to carry concealed on base. Any private weapon brought on post must be registered with the vehicles and weapons registration folks: This is pentagon database. If an unauthorized person is caught with a concealed weapon on an Army base he/she will most likely make a quick trip to the US magistrate.

The SCOTUS traditionally has not intervened in military matters unless the military violated a statute or regulation. The US military is a dictatorship. As a member of the US military you have no Second Amendment rights so long as you are on post. Do not expect that to change any time soon.

A good read on the subject:

http://www.answers.com/topic/citizen...n-the-military
thallub is online now  
Old December 21, 2009, 01:34 PM   #10
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,342
Quote:
The SCOTUS traditionally has not intervened in military matters unless the military violated a statute or regulation. The US military is a dictatorship. As a member of the US military you have no Second Amendment rights so long as you are on post. Do not expect that to change any time soon.
And limited first amendment rights also.
brickeyee is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08401 seconds with 9 queries