Carrying onto Military Bases

[eye95]

The federal government can reasonably restrict any activity in a secure area. They can restrict entry and set conditions on entry.

The problem is that they take this authority way too far. In the "open" areas of installations (you still generally have to get past a guard, and the area is considered secure to a degree), such as exchanges, hobby shops, housing areas, etc., the commander should adopt local laws or, at most, add a requirement to get a base license. However, in other than open areas (such as flight lines, SP armories, etc.), it is reasonable and prudent to deny access to folks who are armed except for those designated to be armed to secure the areas.

Once you accept the reasonability of there being some secure areas where routine carry should be denied, then the question becomes where to draw the line on these areas. Currently, those lines are drawn way too liberally--and foolishly (e.g. Fort Hood).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[mohawk001]

I'm curious, do people think that the military should issue the weapons out to everybody each day or on a perm basis? While in uniform, the only acceptable weapons to use are ones issued by the gov after all. That is part of multiple agreements, treaties, and regulations. I personally don't see that as being reasonable to do each day or on a perm basis. There are enough problems with people being stupid to be honest. The military works hard and plays hard, and that playing hard could have problems if weapons are there all the time. I also understand that the majority would be ok, but just as with the police, it only takes a few bad apples. The military has a hard enough time with their rep in many ways. Also, if the military isn't issued their weapons daily or on a perm basis, why should everybody else be allowed to be armed instead? Now it's a security problem for the military to have so many non-military running around armed. Again, there are enough problems and situations out there. I'm kind of shocked there have not been more shootings on bases to be honest. It's not like they search every vehicle normally.

 

[ATCFLYBOY02]

When speaking about the military, you have to remember: Military members fall under the UCMJ ONLY! You're life changes the second you're on contract with the US gov't. You no longer fall under "civilian" control and as such, you are not afforded the same rights with that uniform on (or off). I did 6 1/2 years AD-USAF & my ex-wife was SP. I asked these lovely questions because I didn't quite get the "point" of the statute but as explained to me, Uncle Sam owns yo ass lol. I don't agree with it by any means but at least its understood why we cant/couldnt.

 

[eye95]

I did 20 years in the USAF. I know the UCMJ and how it affects military members.

However, there are more non-military on almost every military installation in the US than there are military. Those non-military are subject to the overly-strident anti-firearm rules while not being subject to the UCMJ. Worse, since no provisions are made for weapons an individual might be carrying just prior to entering the installation, those individuals are essentially disarmed from the moment they leave their homes until they return at the end of the day if the day's activities include so much as a minute on base.

I know because I am a USAF retiree who works as a civilian on base. My RKBA has been essentially denied me by ridiculous regulations.

 

[ATCFLYBOY02]

Oh I don't refute what you said one bit. I think the regs need to accommodate military civil service at the VERY least. I don't think it will ever happen b/c the SP/CC has to be accountable for all of the firearms on the installation & if he/she doesn't know about them, their ability to "regulate" and "enforce" becomes moot. I think that has more to do with it than anything else. Plus people on the outside would cry little little babies if it ever happened. I guess they don't trust those of us who have security clearances with firearms but they'll trust us with potentially crippling document & information? Something just isn't right about that picture.

 

[eye95]

When I said civilians, I didn't mean just civil service. I am not civil service. I work for the Exchange. I am also talking about dependents and visitors. I am talking about all persons on base who are otherwise not generally prohibited from carrying. They should be allowed to carry in all but a few areas on base. As examples, I have cited the flight line and the SP armory.

At the very least, I should be able to carry right up to the gate, and if the base will not allow me to carry on the installation, then they need to provide some way to secure my firearm so that it is available the instant I leave. Otherwise, the federal government is acting unconstitutionally in that they have effectively stripped me of my RKBA anytime a trip includes the base.

 

[Red Dawg]

Well, if you want to talk about rights trampled, then join the military. They take anything away that they choose. Some of you talk about your security clearance...Well, then you know in a large number of instations you can't have a cell phone. In some places you can't take your keys in...I could go further, but does no good. Once you sign those pieces of paper, your unalienable rights are gone..
Base commanders set the policy for their base, and most go by what, "has always been done". We would all agree that having a gun on base is no safer or dangerous than having it out in town, but for whatever reason "people" deem in dangerous/hazardous...

 

[eye95]

Rights are not "trampled" when one freely agrees not to exercise them as part of a contract in which he gives consideration to get consideration. Such is the case when one signs a contract to join the military. If one does not wish to agree not to exercise certain rights for the benefits of a military career, then he should not sign the contract.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[hp-hobo]

Well, if you want to talk about rights trampled, then join the military. They take anything away that they choose. Some of you talk about your security clearance...Well, then you know in a large number of instations you can't have a cell phone. In some places you can't take your keys in...I could go further, but does no good. Once you sign those pieces of paper, your unalienable rights are gone..
Base commanders set the policy for their base, and most go by what, "has always been done". We would all agree that having a gun on base is no safer or dangerous than having it out in town, but for whatever reason "people" deem in dangerous/hazardous...

Can you cite the Constitutional Amendment that guarantees you the right to keep and bear cell phones or car keys? I'm pretty sure not...

 

[aa1911]

It's awesome how the government trusts me with machine guns, rocket launchers, radios controlling airplanes with lots of ordinance ready to fire, all over the world, but heaven forbid I have a measly handgun on federal land. Funny how the state entrusts me by giving me a CCW and allowing me to OC but the government does not.

living off post, it denies my right to self defense to and from base. What if I stop to help someone on the road or what if I'm stranded and someone wants to get froggy? Or stop for gas and get robbed, murdered, whatever. Pretty stupid.

my SIL could not believe we were not allowed to even have handguns on post after the Ft Hood 'work place accident'.

 

[J1MB0B]

When speaking about the military, you have to remember: Military members fall under the UCMJ ONLY! You're life changes the second you're on contract with the US gov't. You no longer fall under "civilian" control and as such, you are not afforded the same rights with that uniform on (or off).

I'm a little unsure of what you mean by this. I can make assumptions, but I'm pretty sure you won't like what I have to say, so I'm asking for a little clarification before I go on my rant.

 

[armaborealis]

There's actually (at least) two laws relating to carrying on military bases.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?106188-Carrying-on-Military-bases-Help-Please

18 USC § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities. THis one is a felony charge, but appears to only apply to buildings (not, say, the parking lot).

18 USC § 1382 - Entering military, naval, or Coast Guard property. THis is a misdemeanor and prohibits entering a base in a manner not permitted by regulations.

Army Reg 190-11 section 4-5 establishes a broad Army policy that requires commanders to come up with their own local guidance. The local guidance must at a minimum include weapons registration, a general ban on carrying weapons unless specifically authorized by the commander, require safe storage, and a few other things.

Finally, you'd have to drill down to your local base policy, which is sometimes hard to get.

THe other thread discusses the implications of carry on base for military members. For civilians with base access, it looks like the worst that can be done if you leave an undeclared weapon in the car is (A) violation of 18 USC 930 which is a misdemeanor (B) and being banned from the base. The weapon may be confiscated too, I don't know. Obviously if you are a USG employee then you may be terminated.

There are some ways to work within the system. Before doing so it is vital to get the actual base regulation, in writing. DO NOT ACCEPT what the SFS/MP at the gate tells you. Do not even accept what the guy/gal at the armory tells you. Only accept the actual written regulation.

Once you get the reg, parse it for all requirements. Most will require registration. They also establish different transportation requirements. They usually have different policies regarding where you can travel with a weapon. Most allow you to go direct from the gate to the range (skeet or otherwise) or quarters. Some allow routine stops (example to the BX, commissary, etc).

You may be able to live with the reg. For example, you could register your carry handgun, transport it in an approved manner, keep a range bag in the car, and time your base visits to coincide with when the range is open. Keep a copy of the base reg, your registration receipt, and the range MWR brochure with your weapon so that in the unlikely event that the gate guard searches your car AND finds the weapon you can prove that you are 100% legit headed to the range with maybe a permissible stop at the BX on your way out.

If the regs are completely unacceptable, then lobby to have them changed. Base commanders can issue exemptions to policy for you as an individual, or change the base policy. Most do not care about firearms policies, do not realize that they are even that restrictive, and it just isn't on their radar. Unfortuanetly, you probably will have to work through the SFS/MP/Provost Marshal, and most of them tend to be fairly anti gun. THe best advice I can have is to make personal contact with an officer or NCO within the correct agency on base (SFS/Provost Marshal, most likely) and have them help you champion some reasonable reforms forward.

The typical OCDO tactics of confrontation, recording encounters, litigation or threats thereof, etc seem unlikely to work on base. After all, the O-6/O-7 can just say NO and throw you off post. To change things you'll need to work within the system and find an ally to help you with the bureaucratic nonsense that is required to staff something to the O-6/O-7 level in a culture which is hostile to carrying personal weapons as well as extremely risk averse.

It is what it is.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Well, if the constitution was to only limit the federal government then military installations would be one of the few places that could never be restricted.

So that law limiting firearms on to an installation would be a violation of the US constitution. Something to think about.