Firearms on military property - Page 5

mehavey · February 3, 2012, 04:41 PM

Quote:

If a Post Commander does not have the authority to arrest unauthorized people from carrying firearms on post...

He has authority to detain. The local or the Fed LEOs then are invited to cite and/or arrest as appropriate.

MLeake · February 3, 2012, 05:20 PM

MTT TL, my point was simply that as worded, without further definition, it's not clear what a military commander or senior defense department director would be.

Is it a base commander? A unit CO or OIC?

Or is it a theater commander (IE unified command, combatant command, type command....)?

This could range from an O-3 to an O-9 or O-10, or a GS-12 to an SES position.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I just dislike laws and regulations that are not written very clearly.

Slamfire · February 3, 2012, 05:27 PM

Quote:

He has authority to detain.

Detain it is.

mehavey · February 3, 2012, 07:40 PM

Quote:

...dislike laws and regulations that are not written very clearly.

The law -- and the Regs -- are very clear to me.
Both as commander several times, and commanded many times.

MTT TL · February 3, 2012, 08:47 PM

Mleake-

The way I read it all nearly all of those would be correct. If a company commander found someone trying to break into his arms room he would be within the law to order that person detained.

Unlike police officers, military officers are not allowed to "not act" on illegal actions or violations of orders occurring in their presence. To do so would open them up to much more serious charges. This is also true of non-commissioned officers, although they are often given more leeway.

There is case going back to the 1880s of an NCO who surrendered his weapon to train robber. He was sent to court-martial for that.

MLeake · February 3, 2012, 11:45 PM

MTT TL, I'm really not trying to be a pain, but your last post goes back to security vs law. Or at least it went there.

Security personnel must follow their orders and regulations.

Having worked in a security department, my experience was that security personnel, after detaining a suspect, will refer any probable criminal act to an actual LE type agency. This might be NCIS, FBI, Secret Service, etc depending on the nature of the offense.

Security departments usually have nothing to do with follow-on to detention in a criminal case.

And my ex-wife used to get very annoyed that I'd routinely try to corral the more belligerent drunks when we were out and about; I fully understand that commissioned officers and NCOs are never really off-duty. She hated that I was the buzz-kill in the group; unfortunately I was often the senior officer present.

MTT TL · February 4, 2012, 06:20 PM

Ok, what's your point?

MLeake · February 5, 2012, 02:25 AM

My point is that there are differences between security and law enforcement, and promulgation of regulations that are binding on members of a command vs promulgation of regulations that have the force of law for all persons.

My point is that there is a difference between officers and NCOs having the authority to see that regulations are enforced, and officers and NCOs having the ability to promulgate legally binding regulations.

My point is that, as written, the law uses terms that are used differently, and have very different meanings, depending on context. The law is poorly worded, since it fails to clarify which definitions it intends.

With regard to that last point:

For instance, is a senior staff director something like a YA2, who technically only has to supervise two civilian employees but is an O-5 equivalent, or an SES-15, or a deputy or undersecretary level staffer?

Is the commander just a person in charge of some unit, of any size from company on up, or somebody with court martial convening authority? Or somebody with TACON/TACOM authority?

If we were discussing ROE, unit level commanders and battalion level commanders don't normally get to designate and define hostiles - they have to match parameters to guidance put out by a higher authority. IE not all commanders have similar authority.

mehavey · February 5, 2012, 11:02 AM

Consider:

- I am any officer or any non-commissioned officer on Post XX

- The post and/or area commander has issued regulations against carriage of weapons, concealed or unconcealed by those not on duty requiring said weapons and/or or LEOs

- I observe a civilian w/ a weapon w/o clear rationale consistant with those Regs.

- Barring that clear rationale for that weapon, I will approach and/or report/follow that individual

- That individual will be questioned either by me or by the MPs.

- Barring competent answer within the regs, that individual will be detained, his weapon will be secured, and both he and his weapon will be turned over to local and/or federal authorities.

- That individual will wind up in court, where he will get his opportunity to say the law is unclear.

- That judge then will explain the facts of life in very clear terms....

As noted before, as a military officer/non-commissioned officer, the Regs, the law and
the req'd duty are very clear.

Please don't test them. The Forum has only a limited number of good guys and
we need all of them.

.

brickeyee · February 5, 2012, 12:27 PM

Quote:

promulgation of regulations that have the force of law for all persons.

If you do not like it, stay of the property.

It is really simple.

You have NO right to enter.

It is NOT 'public property' like a park, or even a street or sidewalk.

Entry means you assent to the base terms.

MLeake · February 5, 2012, 02:18 PM

brickeyee, do you have any idea how much US real estate is tied up in bases?

Fort Bragg is over 30 miles across. It's huge.

The Eglin AFB complex is even larger.

You cavalierly say, "If you don't like it, don't go there." You ignore the fact that "there" covers an immense amount of open land, and you apparently don't care what the mechanisms are for restricting your access to and exercise of rights over a large patch of our country (which is larger than at least some US states; Bragg and Eglin combined have more land than RI or DE).

Since all you care about is that there are rules, and not how those rules are promulgated or what restrictions should be in place on the promulgation of those rules, I have no interest in discussing the matter with you. You have become a one-track record, and you aren't answering my questions. You just keep repeating your same point.

Your point is, "Be a good boy, shut up, and do like you're told."

That mindset is gradually destroying our representative democracy, and represents the worst of group-think.

MTT TL · February 5, 2012, 08:32 PM

I would posit at this point you are simply whining. If you don't like it, call your congressman. Try to explain your POV. Good luck with that.

**Tom Servo** · February 5, 2012, 08:45 PM

On one hand, the rules are the rules.

On the other hand, those rules may be arbitrary and needlessly restrictive.

So, let's discuss how we might get them changed. We can attack ideas, but we do not attack each other. That's a quick route to this discussion getting locked down.

MTT TL · February 5, 2012, 09:09 PM

My point is the claim that the rules are not understood seems dishonest in light of what the poster is posting. If he does not like them, then by all means try to effect a change. Millions of military, government employees and retirees will likely thank him if he succeeds.

Seems real unlikely however given the whole ongoing "war thingy".

But don't try to claim to not understand something so clear. All of his points have been addressed.

MLeake · February 6, 2012, 01:45 AM

MTT TL, sorry you find me "whiney."

Did you find somewhere in the law that actually defines what comprises a commander or senior staff director? If so, I missed that part.... seems you just assume the lowest level is the one that applies. That's conservative, as far as staying out of trouble goes, but it's the opposite of conservative, as far as assignment of powers to a functionary goes.

Meanwhile, back to the "Just don't go on a base" argument.... I was thinking about all the prime beach real estate that bases own, or have owned, in Florida alone.

Key West - NAS Boca Chica.

south of Miami - Homestead AFB.

Cocoa Beach area - Patrick AFB and Kennedy Space Center (ok, KSC is NASA, but it's effectively Patrick North).

Jacksonville - Naval Station Mayport. (NAS Jacksonville isn't on the beach, but has miles of riverfront and a good marina harbor, so that should also be considered; NAS Cecil Field didn't really have prime waterfront, but it's got a lot of land west of Jax.)

Tampa - MacDill AFB complex.

Panhandle east - Tyndall AFB complex.

Panhandle west - Eglin AFB complex, including Hurlburt and Duke fields, and numerous ancillaries... enormous square mileage of land.

Panhandle further west - NAS Pensacola.

Inland Florida, in addition to NAS Cecil Field and NAS Jacksonville, we have the Ocala National Forest bombing range, the bombing range down by Sebring that I can't place the name off the top of my head, and NAS Whiting Field up northeast of Pensacola.

Then there's Camp Blanding, south of Jacksonville and inland...

Orlando International Airport and its surrounds used to be McCoy AFB.

The Lake Baldwin development east of downtown Orlando used to be NTC Orlando.

I'm sure I'm forgetting others...

(Edit: Don't forget, most of those NAS or AFB locations also have OLFs, or OutLying Fields; Pensacola has or had a bunch of them.)

So, in Florida alone, look at the amount of square miles owned or previously owned by the military. Then look at how many miles of riverfront and coastline are involved.... then say it's no big deal, and we should all just be happy not to have access as civilians, or that we should be happy to surrender 2A rights in order to have access to beaches, rivers, and wilderness.

Now, MTT TL, do I think you are right about how the rules/regs are being enforced? Yes, that's how it is.

Do I think it's right? No, I don't.

Do I think the feds, including DOD, routinely overstep boundaries or do their best to accumulate power in a gradual but inexorable way? Most certainly.

I am not going to bring weapons on base, without authorization. I'm not encouraging anybody else to do so.

But I would love to see an NRA or SAF challenge to the way things currently work; and I think the way things currently work is a matter of 1) law drafted during an era when the US was notorious for acting like a paranoid ninny, led by TailGunner Joe and his ilk; and 2) the executive branch usurping powers whenever feasible.

If you think that's whining, then I'm whining.

Meanwhile, I'd love to see some actual numbers for the amount of square miles that currently fall under the regs and laws in question.

**Tom Servo** · February 6, 2012, 12:58 PM

There's some good information here. There's also a great deal of thinly-veiled bickering. The latter is beginning to eclipse the former, so it's lights-out on this one.

February 3, 2012, 08:47 PM	#105
MTT TL Senior Member Join Date: October 21, 2009 Location: Quadling Country Posts: 2,780	Mleake- The way I read it all nearly all of those would be correct. If a company commander found someone trying to break into his arms room he would be within the law to order that person detained. Unlike police officers, military officers are not allowed to "not act" on illegal actions or violations of orders occurring in their presence. To do so would open them up to much more serious charges. This is also true of non-commissioned officers, although they are often given more leeway. There is case going back to the 1880s of an NCO who surrendered his weapon to train robber. He was sent to court-martial for that. __________________ Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.

February 3, 2012, 11:45 PM	#106
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	MTT TL, I'm really not trying to be a pain, but your last post goes back to security vs law. Or at least it went there. Security personnel must follow their orders and regulations. Having worked in a security department, my experience was that security personnel, after detaining a suspect, will refer any probable criminal act to an actual LE type agency. This might be NCIS, FBI, Secret Service, etc depending on the nature of the offense. Security departments usually have nothing to do with follow-on to detention in a criminal case. And my ex-wife used to get very annoyed that I'd routinely try to corral the more belligerent drunks when we were out and about; I fully understand that commissioned officers and NCOs are never really off-duty. She hated that I was the buzz-kill in the group; unfortunately I was often the senior officer present. Last edited by MLeake; February 4, 2012 at 12:13 AM.

February 4, 2012, 06:20 PM	#107
MTT TL Senior Member Join Date: October 21, 2009 Location: Quadling Country Posts: 2,780	Ok, what's your point? __________________ Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.

February 5, 2012, 11:02 AM	#109
mehavey Senior Member Join Date: June 17, 2010 Location: Virginia Posts: 6,886	Consider: - I am any officer or any non-commissioned officer on Post XX - The post and/or area commander has issued regulations against carriage of weapons, concealed or unconcealed by those not on duty requiring said weapons and/or or LEOs - I observe a civilian w/ a weapon w/o clear rationale consistant with those Regs. - Barring that clear rationale for that weapon, I will approach and/or report/follow that individual - That individual will be questioned either by me or by the MPs. - Barring competent answer within the regs, that individual will be detained, his weapon will be secured, and both he and his weapon will be turned over to local and/or federal authorities. - That individual will wind up in court, where he will get his opportunity to say the law is unclear. - That judge then will explain the facts of life in very clear terms.... As noted before, as a military officer/non-commissioned officer, the Regs, the law and the req'd duty are very clear. Please don't test them. The Forum has only a limited number of good guys and we need all of them. . Last edited by mehavey; February 5, 2012 at 11:07 AM.

February 5, 2012, 08:32 PM	#112
MTT TL Senior Member Join Date: October 21, 2009 Location: Quadling Country Posts: 2,780	I would posit at this point you are simply whining. If you don't like it, call your congressman. Try to explain your POV. Good luck with that. __________________ Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.

February 3, 2012, 05:20 PM	#102
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	MTT TL, my point was simply that as worded, without further definition, it's not clear what a military commander or senior defense department director would be. Is it a base commander? A unit CO or OIC? Or is it a theater commander (IE unified command, combatant command, type command....)? This could range from an O-3 to an O-9 or O-10, or a GS-12 to an SES position. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I just dislike laws and regulations that are not written very clearly.

February 5, 2012, 02:25 AM	#108
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	My point is that there are differences between security and law enforcement, and promulgation of regulations that are binding on members of a command vs promulgation of regulations that have the force of law for all persons. My point is that there is a difference between officers and NCOs having the authority to see that regulations are enforced, and officers and NCOs having the ability to promulgate legally binding regulations. My point is that, as written, the law uses terms that are used differently, and have very different meanings, depending on context. The law is poorly worded, since it fails to clarify which definitions it intends. With regard to that last point: For instance, is a senior staff director something like a YA2, who technically only has to supervise two civilian employees but is an O-5 equivalent, or an SES-15, or a deputy or undersecretary level staffer? Is the commander just a person in charge of some unit, of any size from company on up, or somebody with court martial convening authority? Or somebody with TACON/TACOM authority? If we were discussing ROE, unit level commanders and battalion level commanders don't normally get to designate and define hostiles - they have to match parameters to guidance put out by a higher authority. IE not all commanders have similar authority.

February 5, 2012, 02:18 PM	#111
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	brickeyee, do you have any idea how much US real estate is tied up in bases? Fort Bragg is over 30 miles across. It's huge. The Eglin AFB complex is even larger. You cavalierly say, "If you don't like it, don't go there." You ignore the fact that "there" covers an immense amount of open land, and you apparently don't care what the mechanisms are for restricting your access to and exercise of rights over a large patch of our country (which is larger than at least some US states; Bragg and Eglin combined have more land than RI or DE). Since all you care about is that there are rules, and not how those rules are promulgated or what restrictions should be in place on the promulgation of those rules, I have no interest in discussing the matter with you. You have become a one-track record, and you aren't answering my questions. You just keep repeating your same point. Your point is, "Be a good boy, shut up, and do like you're told." That mindset is gradually destroying our representative democracy, and represents the worst of group-think.

February 5, 2012, 08:45 PM	#113
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	On one hand, the rules are the rules. On the other hand, those rules may be arbitrary and needlessly restrictive. So, let's discuss how we might get them changed. We can attack ideas, but we do not attack each other. That's a quick route to this discussion getting locked down. __________________ Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe

February 5, 2012, 09:09 PM	#114
MTT TL Senior Member Join Date: October 21, 2009 Location: Quadling Country Posts: 2,780	My point is the claim that the rules are not understood seems dishonest in light of what the poster is posting. If he does not like them, then by all means try to effect a change. Millions of military, government employees and retirees will likely thank him if he succeeds. Seems real unlikely however given the whole ongoing "war thingy". But don't try to claim to not understand something so clear. All of his points have been addressed. __________________ Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.

February 6, 2012, 01:45 AM	#115
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	MTT TL, sorry you find me "whiney." Did you find somewhere in the law that actually defines what comprises a commander or senior staff director? If so, I missed that part.... seems you just assume the lowest level is the one that applies. That's conservative, as far as staying out of trouble goes, but it's the opposite of conservative, as far as assignment of powers to a functionary goes. Meanwhile, back to the "Just don't go on a base" argument.... I was thinking about all the prime beach real estate that bases own, or have owned, in Florida alone. Key West - NAS Boca Chica. south of Miami - Homestead AFB. Cocoa Beach area - Patrick AFB and Kennedy Space Center (ok, KSC is NASA, but it's effectively Patrick North). Jacksonville - Naval Station Mayport. (NAS Jacksonville isn't on the beach, but has miles of riverfront and a good marina harbor, so that should also be considered; NAS Cecil Field didn't really have prime waterfront, but it's got a lot of land west of Jax.) Tampa - MacDill AFB complex. Panhandle east - Tyndall AFB complex. Panhandle west - Eglin AFB complex, including Hurlburt and Duke fields, and numerous ancillaries... enormous square mileage of land. Panhandle further west - NAS Pensacola. Inland Florida, in addition to NAS Cecil Field and NAS Jacksonville, we have the Ocala National Forest bombing range, the bombing range down by Sebring that I can't place the name off the top of my head, and NAS Whiting Field up northeast of Pensacola. Then there's Camp Blanding, south of Jacksonville and inland... Orlando International Airport and its surrounds used to be McCoy AFB. The Lake Baldwin development east of downtown Orlando used to be NTC Orlando. I'm sure I'm forgetting others... (Edit: Don't forget, most of those NAS or AFB locations also have OLFs, or OutLying Fields; Pensacola has or had a bunch of them.) So, in Florida alone, look at the amount of square miles owned or previously owned by the military. Then look at how many miles of riverfront and coastline are involved.... then say it's no big deal, and we should all just be happy not to have access as civilians, or that we should be happy to surrender 2A rights in order to have access to beaches, rivers, and wilderness. Now, MTT TL, do I think you are right about how the rules/regs are being enforced? Yes, that's how it is. Do I think it's right? No, I don't. Do I think the feds, including DOD, routinely overstep boundaries or do their best to accumulate power in a gradual but inexorable way? Most certainly. I am not going to bring weapons on base, without authorization. I'm not encouraging anybody else to do so. But I would love to see an NRA or SAF challenge to the way things currently work; and I think the way things currently work is a matter of 1) law drafted during an era when the US was notorious for acting like a paranoid ninny, led by TailGunner Joe and his ilk; and 2) the executive branch usurping powers whenever feasible. If you think that's whining, then I'm whining. Meanwhile, I'd love to see some actual numbers for the amount of square miles that currently fall under the regs and laws in question.

February 6, 2012, 12:58 PM	#116
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	There's some good information here. There's also a great deal of thinly-veiled bickering. The latter is beginning to eclipse the former, so it's lights-out on this one. __________________ Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe