Just Got a Call from Senator Shelby's Office

JonnyP · February 24, 2010, 04:31 PM

For those of you familiar with my earlier threads with the words "Gun-Free Zones - US Military Installations," you must have read where I was waiting on a response from the DOD as requested by Senator Shelby. Here is yet another update.

After waiting over 60 days with no response, I once again contacted the senator and explained I have had no response from the DOD. I went on to remind him there have been two shootings here in north Alabama, at a middle school and at a major university, both involving fatalities, and that both were within "gun-free zones." I expressed my view that this issue simply cannot be left to go by the wayside. I also expressed my fear that another event at a military installation is inevitable.

Today, I got a call on my cell from one of the senator's aides. He obviously saw my letter, and made a call on my behalf to the DOD. He spoke with a colonel who promised to get an answer soon from Mr. Stanley (see my earlier threads) as to why I have received no response. I will hopefully hear something soon.

Clearly, the promise of a response does not mean responding to my real questions, but we can always hope.

My primary questions were (are):

1. WHY does the current policy restrict CCW on military installations? It is not enough to simply point to a regulation or policy. That merely puts the restiction into force; it does not explain the reason for it.

2. Just WHO makes the decision allowing or disallowing CCW on post? I've seen various regulations and policies, but they are rather ambiguous, with words to the effect that if the local intelligence community (with no identification other than that) determines the threat exists and notifies the base authority (commander?, general?, local police?, etc.), he/she may grant certain people the ability to CCW "for the duration of the threat." If such a decision does lie at the base/post level, it seems to me the senator would not have involved the DOD, but would have contacted someone locally, don't you think?

Anyway, now you all have the latest scoop.

We'll just have to wait and see.

Jonny

ADB · February 24, 2010, 05:33 PM

Quote:

1. WHY does the current policy restrict CCW on military installations?

Presumably because military bases are secured facilities in the same vein as courtrooms, airplanes, etcetera. It's understandable when you consider the fact that military facilities have a lot of highly valuable equipment on their premises.

Quote:

Just WHO makes the decision allowing or disallowing CCW on post? I've seen various regulations and policies, but they are rather ambiguous, with words to the effect that if the local intelligence community (with no identification other than that) determines the threat exists and notifies the base authority (commander?, general?, local police?, etc.), he/she may grant certain people the ability to CCW "for the duration of the threat."

I don't believe this is at all accurate. Troops are prevented from carrying weapons except as required by their official duties. So if a base CO wanted to equip guards with concealed weapons, then they'd probably be able to do so as part of that person's duties, without having to receive approval from anyone.

jfrey · February 24, 2010, 06:54 PM

The military, like the goons (oh I mean politicians) in DC forget who ownes them and pays their salaries. The policy makers for the military are of the same arrogant brand as the ones we pay to represent us in Congress. The laws that apply to the populus should also apply to the military. There should be no difference and if i can CCW outside a base, I should be able to carry the same, on any base. The Constitution applies to everybody, not just us poor folks.

Standing Wolf · February 24, 2010, 08:09 PM

Quote:

The Constitution applies to everybody, not just us poor folks.

Well said!

JonnyP · February 25, 2010, 08:37 AM

ADB, not sure what you are questioning as "not at all accurate," but here are some words directly from AR 190-14:

Para 2-2d: DA military and civilian personnel may be authorized to carry
firearms for personal protection when the responsible intelligence
center identifies a credible and specific threat against DA personnel
in that regional area...

Para 2-4f: Personnel assigned firearms for personal protection under the
provisions of paragraph 2–2d, will be authorized to carry firearms
on a case-by-case basis and written authorization issued only for the
duration of specific assignment or threat...

They go a little further to specifiy mandatory training requirements, etc., etc., but there it is nonetheless.

Wagonman · February 25, 2010, 09:51 AM

Quote:

The Constitution applies to everybody, not just us poor folks

Magnificently put. CCW everywhere and always

ADB · February 25, 2010, 04:48 PM

Quote:

ADB, not sure what you are questioning as "not at all accurate," but here are some words directly from AR 190-14:

The idea that a base CO would require a check in with an intelligence group to be able to order soldiers to carry weapons on base. That's counter to what's always been my understanding.

February 24, 2010, 04:31 PM	#1
JonnyP Senior Member Join Date: October 16, 2009 Posts: 195	Just Got a Call from Senator Shelby's Office For those of you familiar with my earlier threads with the words "Gun-Free Zones - US Military Installations," you must have read where I was waiting on a response from the DOD as requested by Senator Shelby. Here is yet another update. After waiting over 60 days with no response, I once again contacted the senator and explained I have had no response from the DOD. I went on to remind him there have been two shootings here in north Alabama, at a middle school and at a major university, both involving fatalities, and that both were within "gun-free zones." I expressed my view that this issue simply cannot be left to go by the wayside. I also expressed my fear that another event at a military installation is inevitable. Today, I got a call on my cell from one of the senator's aides. He obviously saw my letter, and made a call on my behalf to the DOD. He spoke with a colonel who promised to get an answer soon from Mr. Stanley (see my earlier threads) as to why I have received no response. I will hopefully hear something soon. Clearly, the promise of a response does not mean responding to my real questions, but we can always hope. My primary questions were (are): 1. WHY does the current policy restrict CCW on military installations? It is not enough to simply point to a regulation or policy. That merely puts the restiction into force; it does not explain the reason for it. 2. Just WHO makes the decision allowing or disallowing CCW on post? I've seen various regulations and policies, but they are rather ambiguous, with words to the effect that if the local intelligence community (with no identification other than that) determines the threat exists and notifies the base authority (commander?, general?, local police?, etc.), he/she may grant certain people the ability to CCW "for the duration of the threat." If such a decision does lie at the base/post level, it seems to me the senator would not have involved the DOD, but would have contacted someone locally, don't you think? Anyway, now you all have the latest scoop. We'll just have to wait and see. Jonny

February 24, 2010, 06:54 PM	#3
jfrey Senior Member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Location: Coastal South Texas Posts: 557	The military, like the goons (oh I mean politicians) in DC forget who ownes them and pays their salaries. The policy makers for the military are of the same arrogant brand as the ones we pay to represent us in Congress. The laws that apply to the populus should also apply to the military. There should be no difference and if i can CCW outside a base, I should be able to carry the same, on any base. The Constitution applies to everybody, not just us poor folks.

February 25, 2010, 08:37 AM	#5
JonnyP Senior Member Join Date: October 16, 2009 Posts: 195	ADB, not sure what you are questioning as "not at all accurate," but here are some words directly from AR 190-14: Para 2-2d: DA military and civilian personnel may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection when the responsible intelligence center identifies a credible and specific threat against DA personnel in that regional area... Para 2-4f: Personnel assigned firearms for personal protection under the provisions of paragraph 2–2d, will be authorized to carry firearms on a case-by-case basis and written authorization issued only for the duration of specific assignment or threat... They go a little further to specifiy mandatory training requirements, etc., etc., but there it is nonetheless.