Gun-Free Zones - US Military Installations

JonnyP · December 10, 2009, 12:03 PM

Two things:

1. Can ANYBODY give me an authoritative source which documents the reasons WHY US military installations are gun-free zones? I already know about the law signed by Clinton in 1993, but that merely ESTABLISHED the law, it doesn't offer any justification for it.

2. Anybody aware of any move to have this changed? I've contacted my Senators and my Congressman. I've contacted the base Anti-terrorism officer. No replies.

Anybody?

rwilson452 · December 10, 2009, 12:14 PM

As far back as I can remember, it was always included in military regulations. Army regs, navy regs and airforce regs. Then tweeked up in base regulations. One base I was stationed on had over 650 acres and five building. the CO allowed hunting. At one point we had a dog problem as the city dump was not far away and separated by some swampy scrub land. The co declared if you wanted to hunt the dogs, the base would supply a carbine and a shovel. You were required to bury the dead dog(s). He notified the town that any dogs found on the base were subject to being shot.

koolminx · December 10, 2009, 12:19 PM

The simplest answer to your question is that they are NOT Gun Free Zones.

I have over 23 years of continuous military life and I have not encountered ONE base where you are not allowed to have firearms.

Please revise your question to reflect actual facts that you can direct your anger towards. Only then will we have the ability to answer your specific complaints with reasonable as can be explanations.

K

m.p.driver · December 10, 2009, 12:28 PM

He probably meant to ask is why personnel trained in the correct use of weapons not allowed to carry one in their day to day activities.And why if you live on post is it required for any firearms to be registered and kept secured at the provosts office.

noyes · December 10, 2009, 12:28 PM

This may help

http://www.dodig.mil/fo/foia/IGD5210...-2-04Final.pdf

or try searching thru here.

http://search.dma.mil/search?q=weapo...FENSE_frontend

JonnyP · December 10, 2009, 12:41 PM

koolminx,

That's very interesting. I too have over 25 years of service in national defense, first as a retired military officer, then as a contractor, now as an Army civilian. Even though the first handgun I ever purchased was a Colt King Cobra I bought ON BASE from the Rod and Gun Club back in the mid 80's, today, military installations are gun-free zones as far as CCW is concerned. Even law enforcement personnel cannot carry weapons to/from the base. They arrive, then draw their weapons from the armory for the perfomance of their duties, then turn them back in when leaving to go home. No one else is allowed to bring firearms on base with the few exceptions given to the hunter or skeet shooter.

I will admit I am not familiar with the current laws for owning or keeping firearms on base as I have not lived on base in over 15 years. I used to have my handgun and a couple shotguns in base housing. But I believe that too has restrictions today.

My questions center around the need for protection. In light of what happened at Ft Hood recently, which has been constantly referred to as a "gun-free zone" in the media and even by the Anti-terrorism officer at Ft Hood with whom I have personnal spoken, I do not believe asking these questions is out of line. Right now today, I can legally carry a concealed handgun around in public places, but not on base. I can't even have it in the car while on base.

So again, what is the justification for these laws, and what do you suggest we do to change them?

Jonny

raimius · December 10, 2009, 04:11 PM

The simplest explanation is the military wants to determine who can carry firearms. If they ban everyone they don't approve of, they get that control.

Running security is easier when the only people allowed to be armed are on your own security team.

While a valid theory, I think it steps on the rights of everyone else. I'd love to be able to CCW on base, but per current regs, I can't even store a firearm on base! Unfortunately, I don't see this changing anytime soon.

JonnyP · December 10, 2009, 04:34 PM

Not sure what you mean by "steps on the rights of everyone else." But I agree that we shouldn't expect anything to happen soon, since, unfortunately, most people seem content to let others do the deciding for them. The old, "Someone else will take care of it" mentality.

Well, nothing WILL happen if people don't stand up...

"In any revolution, it takes one man with a vision..."

koolminx · December 10, 2009, 09:32 PM

Johny, I see what you're saying but only recently as 12 years ago we were stationed in Ft. George G. Meade MD. The spook base and I lived not 1500 to 2000 feet from the NSA building... I open carried on base, in the exchange, in the class 6 and elsewhere. I never incurred the slightest raising of the eyebrow...

And that is one suspicious place to live.

**44 AMP** · December 11, 2009, 12:16 AM

Is that military bases are federal property. They are not public land, other than in the sense that the government owns them. They are Federal installations, and under existing laws and regulations, base/area commanders get to set policy. And the easiest policy is "no." Not everyone does this, and there are fairly wide variations, depending on the details of the base.

Some areas are more heavily restricted than others. Want to CCW in an area where nuclear weapons are stored? I seriously doubt you will be able to obtain permission. Want to have your personal firearm in the barracks? Odds are, not there either. Live in post housing? Could be a different story.

Its Federal property, and they get to set the rules, rather independant of the rest of the nation.

JonnyP · December 11, 2009, 09:40 AM

I believe the real answer here is that there never was any "justification" for making military bases, or any other federal property, gun-free zones. It was simply a cave-in to the anti-gun crowd. Oh, there may be something somewhere which "documents" the "fact" that restricting guns reduces crime, but we've all seen the evidence to the contrary.

It's rediculous that a soldier in the sand-box is told, "See that terrorist over there trying to kill you? Take him out." But over here at home, and on a military base no less, that same soldier is told, "See that terrorist over there trying to kill you? Go to your office, lock the door, turn out the lights, hide under your desk, and call 911."

Don't believe me? It's published in our very own "Active Shooter Plan" here on base.

When I spoke with the Anti-terrorism officer at Ft Hood a few weeks ago, he told me that at the beginning of FY-09, they tried to get the regulations at Ft Hood changed to merely allow law-enforcement personnel to carry to/from home. Seems one of their female members was mugged in her driveway (off post) upon returning home from duty one evening around 2000 hours (8:00 PM). They didn't try to include anyone else. They were just trying to take baby steps toward a safer solution. It was summarily denied.

And then the inevitable happened.

He further said they had a meeting to discuss the shooting, held in an "after-action" format, where he fully expected this issue (to allow others to CCW on base for protection) to resurface. It did. The solution? More restrictions (increase in random vehicle checks, etc.).

When I wrote both of my Senators and my Congressman, I asked a simple question: "Must we wait for this to happen again before we act?"

No responses.

If I am out of line, I'll shut up, go to my corner, and color. I just think this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

And I get the feeling sometimes I'm just talking to the wall...

NavyLT · December 11, 2009, 02:09 PM

Quote:

If I am out of line, I'll shut up, go to my corner, and color. I just think this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

And I get the feeling sometimes I'm just talking to the wall...

No, you are not being out of line. I find it quite interesting that we are sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and then that very same government removes our rights guaranteed by that Constitution on property that is owned by that same government.

johnwilliamson062 · December 11, 2009, 03:24 PM

Same justification the military uses for every other control they put on your life. None. I don't know why anyone would expect more. Just accept it.

I am not sure how long the shooting went on but it seems to have been some time. I thought it was odd there was not a faster response by someone at Ft hood who was armed. It just seems odd to me that there was not an officer or something close with a sidearm.

Maybe after spending more time on a military base it won't.

raimius · December 12, 2009, 02:50 AM

I went to a briefing about response times for an active shooter at my base. I'm not going to post times, but I was not impressed.

By "steps on the rights of everyone else" I was lamenting the fact that anyone who is not an on-duty LEO/security suddenly has any right to carry denied. The instant I leave base, I can legally open carry. The second I cross the property line, I become a criminal for the same action.

As for justification: the easiest way to do force protection is to deny the general population the means to inflict harm. Granted, those intent on harm will break the rules, but it makes them easier to ID.
...I don't buy it, but without examination it is an easy "solution."

**44 AMP** · December 12, 2009, 03:29 AM

Quote:

By "steps on the rights of everyone else" I was lamenting the fact that anyone who is not an on-duty LEO/security suddenly has any right to carry denied. The instant I leave base, I can legally open carry. The second I cross the property line, I become a criminal for the same action.

Note that the troops don't have their issue weapons on them either, except when on duty, and the duty calls for it. The rest of the time, they are all locked up in the arms room. And in the states (and other bases in the world in "peaceful" areas) most of the time they have their weapons, they do not have any ammunition. Only on the firing ranges, and as specific guards do they get any ammo.

I know this was the way it was 35 years ago when I was in. I hope that in those countries considered the "sharp end" it is different, but I don't know that from personal experience.

Our troops aren't "plaster saints". Unsupervised, (and sometimes even when supervised) they can be as reckless and irresponsible as any civilian in their age group. The fact is, that in order to cut down on accidents, the services have had a policy of no weapons and no ammunition for everyone, except when needed for duty for a very long time.

God love our troops, and so should we. I mean no disrespect at all. I was one, my children are both in uniform right now. But face reality. Take normal youthful idiocy, and add in the stress of the military (both pre, and post combat), and you have a huge potential for problems. The military's solution is, like nearly everything else they do, uniform. One size fits all (fits badly, but fits).

You may be a competent individual, have a CCW, training, etc. But the service doesn't care. Their answer is what it is.

You should recognise that as a member of the military, you do not have the same constitutional rights as a civilian. Your enlistment is a contract where you voluntarily agree to the suspension of your rights, while you are serving. One does this, so that the civlian population can keep their rights. Thats the whole point. Thats part of the sacrifice made by everyone who takes the oath and puts on a uniform. That is why they deserve our respect, and our love. For what they are willing to give up, so that the rest of us can be safe.

I walked that path a long time ago, you are on it today. Don't focus on the pitfalls and the rocks, step over them, keep your eye on the real goal, and keep your powder dry.

raimius · December 12, 2009, 05:33 AM

I understand, 44AMP, but I invoke the right to gripe.

It is a "one size fits most" solution, no doubt about it. It works most of the time, but it certainly has some deficiencies. I too would fear some military members regularly carrying firearms! However, I think there is enough evidence to permit some people to carry. I'd be OK with a required DoD course or some state mandated course, in order to carry on base. Heck, I needed to take training to drive my car on base! It would be entirely possible to create a standard that limits gross stupidity while still preserving an option.

I think inertia is too great, at the current time. It is much easier for the powers that be to let this go. There is not enough pressure for change, yet.

Tucker 1371 · December 12, 2009, 09:30 AM

delete, answered my own question, my fault for not reading up.

Magi · December 12, 2009, 09:39 AM

Firearms are prohibited on military bases by individual unless authorized in writing by the commanding officer or as required while carrying out assigned duties.

JonnyP · December 12, 2009, 10:22 AM

I couldn't agree more, raimius, and I said as much in my letters to base leadership, Senators, Congressman, etc.

44 AMP, I fully understand, and agree, that those in uniform give up certain rights while serving. But they aren't forced to give up their right to carry while off base just because they are on active duty, so why is "on base" so different?

When I wrote my letters to various leaders, I explained that what makes the current policy so dangerous is that now, it's a matter of public knowledge our bases are gun-free zones. To a terrorist, that's like going "hunting at the zoo." Admittedly, we do NOT need to arm the general populace for the purpose of engaging the enemy, nor do we want them trying to assist law enforcement. But any fear that this could happen is, I believe, unwarranted. After all, that's not what we see off base where it IS legal to carry. We don't see masses of armed people firing back at convenience store robbers so that LE is confused and can't differentiate between perps and innocents, do we? In reality, most of the time it's all over (or could be) by the time LE arrives on the scene.

What IS needed is the simple ability to protect/defend oneself, and if necessary, those in the immediate vicinity.

As I've already said, I agree with the many who have commented regarding the rights given up, the high inertia to change, etc. But I did not detect strong support FOR the current policy. Am I wrong? I know this problem is not easily solved, but if we are in agreement that something needs to change, isn't it wrong to just sit back and do nothing?

I believe I have taken the steps I can take in order to affect change. Will I be successful? Not if I'm alone...

drail · December 12, 2009, 01:33 PM

If this is indeed solely up to the base commander then any commander that forbids his soldiers to carry on base should be relieved of command, stripped of all rank and forced to pick up cigarette butts for the rest of his life. Will there be accidents? Sure. Are there accidents with issued weapons anyway? Of course. Does individual training need to be better? You bet. Denying these people of the ability to defend themselves because of poor training and discipline by the people in charge is an insult to the men and women serving under them and a refusal to see the real problem. Am I angry? Absolutely.

Magi · December 12, 2009, 04:56 PM

Quote:

If this is indeed solely up to the base commander then any commander that forbids his soldiers to carry on base should be relieved of command, stripped of all rank and forced to pick up cigarette butts for the rest of his life.

Uhhh, right...

drail · December 12, 2009, 06:05 PM

Magi, are you saying this is a stupid idea or it would never happen? I have personally seen a full bird Colonel stripped of rank and picking up butts.

raimius · December 12, 2009, 07:26 PM

Except it is NOT simply up to the base commander...

Magi · December 12, 2009, 07:44 PM

Quote:

I have personally seen a full bird Colonel stripped of rank and picking up butts.

Perhaps. But certainly not for ordering all personal weapons prohibited on his/her post.

drail · December 12, 2009, 07:57 PM

No it was actually for a much less serious offense. Being a veteran I am quite familiar with the UCMJ but I will never agree with giving up the most basic human right because you signed a contract to serve a Government. Every restriction I have read of concerning weapons on a military installation were posted by direction of the base command authority. I am not saying this applies to every case.

December 10, 2009, 12:03 PM	#1
JonnyP Senior Member Join Date: October 16, 2009 Posts: 195	Gun-Free Zones - US Military Installations Two things: 1. Can ANYBODY give me an authoritative source which documents the reasons WHY US military installations are gun-free zones? I already know about the law signed by Clinton in 1993, but that merely ESTABLISHED the law, it doesn't offer any justification for it. 2. Anybody aware of any move to have this changed? I've contacted my Senators and my Congressman. I've contacted the base Anti-terrorism officer. No replies. Anybody?

December 10, 2009, 12:14 PM	#2
rwilson452 Senior Member Join Date: June 10, 2004 Location: Tioga co. PA Posts: 2,647	As far back as I can remember, it was always included in military regulations. Army regs, navy regs and airforce regs. Then tweeked up in base regulations. One base I was stationed on had over 650 acres and five building. the CO allowed hunting. At one point we had a dog problem as the city dump was not far away and separated by some swampy scrub land. The co declared if you wanted to hunt the dogs, the base would supply a carbine and a shovel. You were required to bury the dead dog(s). He notified the town that any dogs found on the base were subject to being shot. __________________ USNRET '61-'81

December 11, 2009, 12:16 AM	#10
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,832	The simplest answer... Is that military bases are federal property. They are not public land, other than in the sense that the government owns them. They are Federal installations, and under existing laws and regulations, base/area commanders get to set policy. And the easiest policy is "no." Not everyone does this, and there are fairly wide variations, depending on the details of the base. Some areas are more heavily restricted than others. Want to CCW in an area where nuclear weapons are stored? I seriously doubt you will be able to obtain permission. Want to have your personal firearm in the barracks? Odds are, not there either. Live in post housing? Could be a different story. Its Federal property, and they get to set the rules, rather independant of the rest of the nation. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

December 12, 2009, 09:30 AM	#17
Tucker 1371 Senior Member Join Date: December 29, 2008 Location: East TN Posts: 2,649	delete, answered my own question, my fault for not reading up. __________________ Sgt. of Marines, 5th Award Expert Rifle, 237/250 Expert Pistol, 382/400. D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!! If you start a thread, be active in it. Don't leave us hanging. OEF 2011 Sangin, Afg. Molon Labe

December 10, 2009, 12:19 PM	#3
koolminx Senior Member Join Date: January 12, 2009 Posts: 520	The simplest answer to your question is that they are NOT Gun Free Zones. I have over 23 years of continuous military life and I have not encountered ONE base where you are not allowed to have firearms. Please revise your question to reflect actual facts that you can direct your anger towards. Only then will we have the ability to answer your specific complaints with reasonable as can be explanations. K

December 10, 2009, 12:28 PM	#4
m.p.driver Senior Member Join Date: January 25, 2009 Location: Ohio Posts: 552	He probably meant to ask is why personnel trained in the correct use of weapons not allowed to carry one in their day to day activities.And why if you live on post is it required for any firearms to be registered and kept secured at the provosts office.

December 10, 2009, 12:28 PM	#5
noyes Senior Member Join Date: December 27, 2008 Posts: 1,032	This may help http://www.dodig.mil/fo/foia/IGD5210...-2-04Final.pdf or try searching thru here. http://search.dma.mil/search?q=weapo...FENSE_frontend

December 10, 2009, 12:41 PM	#6
JonnyP Senior Member Join Date: October 16, 2009 Posts: 195	koolminx, That's very interesting. I too have over 25 years of service in national defense, first as a retired military officer, then as a contractor, now as an Army civilian. Even though the first handgun I ever purchased was a Colt King Cobra I bought ON BASE from the Rod and Gun Club back in the mid 80's, today, military installations are gun-free zones as far as CCW is concerned. Even law enforcement personnel cannot carry weapons to/from the base. They arrive, then draw their weapons from the armory for the perfomance of their duties, then turn them back in when leaving to go home. No one else is allowed to bring firearms on base with the few exceptions given to the hunter or skeet shooter. I will admit I am not familiar with the current laws for owning or keeping firearms on base as I have not lived on base in over 15 years. I used to have my handgun and a couple shotguns in base housing. But I believe that too has restrictions today. My questions center around the need for protection. In light of what happened at Ft Hood recently, which has been constantly referred to as a "gun-free zone" in the media and even by the Anti-terrorism officer at Ft Hood with whom I have personnal spoken, I do not believe asking these questions is out of line. Right now today, I can legally carry a concealed handgun around in public places, but not on base. I can't even have it in the car while on base. So again, what is the justification for these laws, and what do you suggest we do to change them? Jonny

December 10, 2009, 04:11 PM	#7
raimius Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2008 Posts: 2,199	The simplest explanation is the military wants to determine who can carry firearms. If they ban everyone they don't approve of, they get that control. Running security is easier when the only people allowed to be armed are on your own security team. While a valid theory, I think it steps on the rights of everyone else. I'd love to be able to CCW on base, but per current regs, I can't even store a firearm on base! Unfortunately, I don't see this changing anytime soon.

December 10, 2009, 04:34 PM	#8
JonnyP Senior Member Join Date: October 16, 2009 Posts: 195	Not sure what you mean by "steps on the rights of everyone else." But I agree that we shouldn't expect anything to happen soon, since, unfortunately, most people seem content to let others do the deciding for them. The old, "Someone else will take care of it" mentality. Well, nothing WILL happen if people don't stand up... "In any revolution, it takes one man with a vision..."

December 10, 2009, 09:32 PM	#9
koolminx Senior Member Join Date: January 12, 2009 Posts: 520	Johny, I see what you're saying but only recently as 12 years ago we were stationed in Ft. George G. Meade MD. The spook base and I lived not 1500 to 2000 feet from the NSA building... I open carried on base, in the exchange, in the class 6 and elsewhere. I never incurred the slightest raising of the eyebrow... And that is one suspicious place to live.

December 11, 2009, 09:40 AM	#11
JonnyP Senior Member Join Date: October 16, 2009 Posts: 195	I believe the real answer here is that there never was any "justification" for making military bases, or any other federal property, gun-free zones. It was simply a cave-in to the anti-gun crowd. Oh, there may be something somewhere which "documents" the "fact" that restricting guns reduces crime, but we've all seen the evidence to the contrary. It's rediculous that a soldier in the sand-box is told, "See that terrorist over there trying to kill you? Take him out." But over here at home, and on a military base no less, that same soldier is told, "See that terrorist over there trying to kill you? Go to your office, lock the door, turn out the lights, hide under your desk, and call 911." Don't believe me? It's published in our very own "Active Shooter Plan" here on base. When I spoke with the Anti-terrorism officer at Ft Hood a few weeks ago, he told me that at the beginning of FY-09, they tried to get the regulations at Ft Hood changed to merely allow law-enforcement personnel to carry to/from home. Seems one of their female members was mugged in her driveway (off post) upon returning home from duty one evening around 2000 hours (8:00 PM). They didn't try to include anyone else. They were just trying to take baby steps toward a safer solution. It was summarily denied. And then the inevitable happened. He further said they had a meeting to discuss the shooting, held in an "after-action" format, where he fully expected this issue (to allow others to CCW on base for protection) to resurface. It did. The solution? More restrictions (increase in random vehicle checks, etc.). When I wrote both of my Senators and my Congressman, I asked a simple question: "Must we wait for this to happen again before we act?" No responses. If I am out of line, I'll shut up, go to my corner, and color. I just think this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. And I get the feeling sometimes I'm just talking to the wall...

December 11, 2009, 03:24 PM	#13
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,995	Same justification the military uses for every other control they put on your life. None. I don't know why anyone would expect more. Just accept it. I am not sure how long the shooting went on but it seems to have been some time. I thought it was odd there was not a faster response by someone at Ft hood who was armed. It just seems odd to me that there was not an officer or something close with a sidearm. Maybe after spending more time on a military base it won't.

December 12, 2009, 02:50 AM	#14
raimius Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2008 Posts: 2,199	I went to a briefing about response times for an active shooter at my base. I'm not going to post times, but I was not impressed. By "steps on the rights of everyone else" I was lamenting the fact that anyone who is not an on-duty LEO/security suddenly has any right to carry denied. The instant I leave base, I can legally open carry. The second I cross the property line, I become a criminal for the same action. As for justification: the easiest way to do force protection is to deny the general population the means to inflict harm. Granted, those intent on harm will break the rules, but it makes them easier to ID. ...I don't buy it, but without examination it is an easy "solution."

December 12, 2009, 05:33 AM	#16
raimius Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2008 Posts: 2,199	I understand, 44AMP, but I invoke the right to gripe. It is a "one size fits most" solution, no doubt about it. It works most of the time, but it certainly has some deficiencies. I too would fear some military members regularly carrying firearms! However, I think there is enough evidence to permit some people to carry. I'd be OK with a required DoD course or some state mandated course, in order to carry on base. Heck, I needed to take training to drive my car on base! It would be entirely possible to create a standard that limits gross stupidity while still preserving an option. I think inertia is too great, at the current time. It is much easier for the powers that be to let this go. There is not enough pressure for change, yet.

December 12, 2009, 09:39 AM	#18
Magi Junior member Join Date: July 5, 2009 Location: Earth Posts: 127	Firearms are prohibited on military bases by individual unless authorized in writing by the commanding officer or as required while carrying out assigned duties.

December 12, 2009, 10:22 AM	#19
JonnyP Senior Member Join Date: October 16, 2009 Posts: 195	I couldn't agree more, raimius, and I said as much in my letters to base leadership, Senators, Congressman, etc. 44 AMP, I fully understand, and agree, that those in uniform give up certain rights while serving. But they aren't forced to give up their right to carry while off base just because they are on active duty, so why is "on base" so different? When I wrote my letters to various leaders, I explained that what makes the current policy so dangerous is that now, it's a matter of public knowledge our bases are gun-free zones. To a terrorist, that's like going "hunting at the zoo." Admittedly, we do NOT need to arm the general populace for the purpose of engaging the enemy, nor do we want them trying to assist law enforcement. But any fear that this could happen is, I believe, unwarranted. After all, that's not what we see off base where it IS legal to carry. We don't see masses of armed people firing back at convenience store robbers so that LE is confused and can't differentiate between perps and innocents, do we? In reality, most of the time it's all over (or could be) by the time LE arrives on the scene. What IS needed is the simple ability to protect/defend oneself, and if necessary, those in the immediate vicinity. As I've already said, I agree with the many who have commented regarding the rights given up, the high inertia to change, etc. But I did not detect strong support FOR the current policy. Am I wrong? I know this problem is not easily solved, but if we are in agreement that something needs to change, isn't it wrong to just sit back and do nothing? I believe I have taken the steps I can take in order to affect change. Will I be successful? Not if I'm alone...

December 12, 2009, 01:33 PM	#20
drail Junior member Join Date: February 2, 2008 Posts: 3,150	If this is indeed solely up to the base commander then any commander that forbids his soldiers to carry on base should be relieved of command, stripped of all rank and forced to pick up cigarette butts for the rest of his life. Will there be accidents? Sure. Are there accidents with issued weapons anyway? Of course. Does individual training need to be better? You bet. Denying these people of the ability to defend themselves because of poor training and discipline by the people in charge is an insult to the men and women serving under them and a refusal to see the real problem. Am I angry? Absolutely.

December 12, 2009, 06:05 PM	#22
drail Junior member Join Date: February 2, 2008 Posts: 3,150	Magi, are you saying this is a stupid idea or it would never happen? I have personally seen a full bird Colonel stripped of rank and picking up butts.

December 12, 2009, 07:26 PM	#23
raimius Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2008 Posts: 2,199	Except it is NOT simply up to the base commander...

December 12, 2009, 07:57 PM	#25
drail Junior member Join Date: February 2, 2008 Posts: 3,150	No it was actually for a much less serious offense. Being a veteran I am quite familiar with the UCMJ but I will never agree with giving up the most basic human right because you signed a contract to serve a Government. Every restriction I have read of concerning weapons on a military installation were posted by direction of the base command authority. I am not saying this applies to every case.