Firearms on military property

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Federal Government has a big stick.

An old bud told me of an Arsenal near where he lived as a kid during WWII.

The locals and the Arsenal workers had a lot of friction, the Arsenal having grown so big and so fast. The local cops used to harass the Arsenal workers.

One day, an Arsenal worker was being chased by a local Cop. Maybe speeding, who knows. The Arsenal worker has the proper decals and tags and goes by the Post Security. The Cop has no justification or even authority to go on the base but he keeps on the pursuit.

Bud told me the Soldier on guard at the gate, he lifted his thompson machine gun off the hook and unloaded it in the rear window of the Cop Car as it went by.

That ended the chase, and there was no question about the limits of local authority and whose law was enforced on the Arsenal.
 
Mleake my point is that Military rules are different than civilian rules. Their authroity is not drawn from the same USC sections that normal federal enclaves operate under. I hope by my post that someone will think long and hard before they violate a post regulation and get themselves burried in a Federal Prision for an extended period of time.

In some cases the regulations they operate under are not published. If you enter a Military enclave you must obey the singage.

There is a small facility in Maryland which, should you fail to follow the posted (signs), will result in you being shot. It is marked simply, there is not a lot visible high tech survelliance. It is a simple gate and guardhouse. The only visible difference is that the gate is manned by sailors not federal security guards.

Even on an open "Post" there places were the rules change. A good example is Andrews Joint Operating Base. Most of that base is open to the public and civilian rules apply. There are also places, the demarcation lines are not distinct, which are governed strictly by Military Rules. These rules are enforced by humorless Service Members with loaded weapons and authority to shoot if compliance is not immediate and correct.

My hope by posting in the manner I have is to convey seriousness of this issue and the cost which could be incurred by someone wanting to exercise their rights inappropriately.
 
ltc444,

Could you please post/cite the specific controlling authority that allows a civilian to be prosecuted for the violation of a post regulation such as carrying an unauthorized firearm on base?

Their authroity is not drawn from the same USC sections that normal federal enclaves operate under.
Click to expand...
In which 'military' USC sections is this authority to regulate civilian possession of unauthorized located?
 
No but you can read on the signs. I no longer have a JAG Officer to provide that for me.

I note that you are near Dugway. Take a ride out there and you will find the citations.
 
Last edited:
I am the Commander, you are on my base and you will bloody well do what I say. If you violate my rules I will classify you as a terrorist and turn you over to the FBI and the Feds for prosecution. It will take weeks if not months to sort out your situation
Click to expand...

Sorry Commander, you can only enforce rules over which you are authorized to enforce. You have no authority to make up your own rules. If you charge me with violating those rules, you need to be able to point to the law/regulation in which they are encoded and justify my incarceration. Thats the rules.

In some cases the regulations they operate under are not published. If you enter a Military enclave you must obey the singage.
Click to expand...

All rules, regulations and laws are published, someplace. There are no signs warning military members to not walk around with their hands in their pockets, but it is a regulation.

There is a small facility in Maryland which, should you fail to follow the posted (signs), will result in you being shot.
Click to expand...

You will not be shot before a guard talks, or attempts to talk, to you. My mother got lost on Loring AF Base. She ended up at the Priority A, Alert Bomber Facility and walked up to the fence, setting alarms off as she approached. She actually touched the fence, setting off even more alarms. There was a sign about ten feet from her that said violators may be subjct to Deadly Force. Thise signs are not a blanket "Open fire at will, when this happens" type of authoization.

MLeake is asking a very valid question. But none of us has been able to provide the citations he has asked for. All I can remember from my days in the service was a lot of these signs referenced Title 18, USC.
 
When I jumped into this thread, I had hoped to prevent someone from attempting to exercise his "rights" on a military installation and creating an incident which would set cause back.

Such an incident could deny us access to large tracks of land which has been open to the general population for shooting, hunting and fishing.

For those of you who have demanded that I provide proof of my statements I suggest your review the following chapters from Title 50 of the USC and the associated CFRs:

CHAPTER 5—ARSENALS, ARMORIES, ARMS, AND WAR MATERIAL GENERALLY (§§ 51_to_57—100a)
CHAPTER 6—WILLFUL DESTRUCTION, ETC., OF WAR OR NATIONAL-DEFENSE MATERIAL (§ 101_to_106)
CHAPTER 8—EXPLOSIVES; MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTION, STORAGE, USE, AND POSSESSION REGULATED (§ 121_to_144)
CHAPTER 13—INSURRECTION (§§ 201_to_204—226)
CHAPTER 15—NATIONAL SECURITY (§§ 401—442a)
CHAPTER 23—INTERNAL SECURITY (§§ 781—858)
CHAPTER 24—NATIONAL DEFENSE FACILITIES (§ 881_to_887)
CHAPTER 32—CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM (§§ 1511—1526)
CHAPTER 33—WAR POWERS RESOLUTION (§§ 1541—1548)
CHAPTER 34—NATIONAL EMERGENCIES (§§ 1601—1651)
CHAPTER 35—INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY ECONOMIC POWERS (§§ 1701—1707)
CHAPTER 40—DEFENSE AGAINST WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (§§ 2301—2371)
CHAPTER 41—NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (§§ 2401—2484)
CHAPTER 42—ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE PROVISIONS (§§ 2501—2822)
CHAPTER 43—PREVENTING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROLIFERATION AND TERRORISM (§§ 2901—2932)

That should give you some good reading and hopefully open your eyes to the seriousness of attempting to exercise your 5A rights on a military installation.

Each of these Chapters and their supporting CFRs, findings and executive orders have buried in them arcain references which can be used to justify the actions I have discussed in previous post.
 
Most of the codes you have cited required active acts of hostility towards a resource and therefore are not applicaple.

Joe Dude (Who for some valid reason has access to the installation) decides to go to the BX/PX and has a concealed handgun somewhere on his body. After he goes to the PX/BX he decides to go the base clinic or hospital then to the commissary.

He, for some reason, catches the eyes of security or law enforcement people. He is charged (Under what code, rule or regulation ?) and is given a magistrates ticket. If he really ticks the judge off and decides to challenge the law, what law or code do they use? If the judge can sentence him to more than one year in prison, when Joe Dude decides he is not going pay any fine, what rule does the Judge use.

The majority of US Code: Title 50 - War and National Defense has been repealed according to this website: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sup_01_50.html

If you enter a military installation with the intent of causing serious harm to others or the war making abilities of the United Staes, that is a different story. (AND that is not what was asked.)
 
I'm sure there are a lot of posters on here who know more than I do about law, including military law.

However, I believe that the commander of any military installation can and does make any kind of regulation about his facility which is not specifically prohibited by federal regulation.

My understanding is:

If a civilian violates one of his (sometimes quite local) regulations, the most the commander can do, assuming the civ doesn't violate some regulation which could give the military the actual right to shoot him, is detain and turn over to civil authority where further adjudication can take place, if appropriate.

The fence line works both ways. If state law no longer applies on one side of the fence, the Commander's regulations no longer apply on the other. Once you cross that line inward, you are absolutely under the Commander's rules.

If I, OTOH, as a Civilian DoD employee, manage to pi$$ off the Base Commander, he can dang well do something about it: Although he doesn't have the power to fire me, he can refuse to let me on his facility, making it quite difficult for me to continue to do my job.

I think that the regulation that the OP is asking for exist in those that define how the facility commander is allowed to exercise power to regulate.

Best,

Will
 
There are some very will ful people on this thread, there are ways to test your theories, and the best is to get your self arrested on a military base.

You can get on your soap box and proclaim your legal theories, and then all you have to do is wait and see what happens.

Or, if you really want to test the system, go to Toole Army Depot, the place where all the chemical weapons are stored. I talked with a Government lady who visited that place. She said after proving you were supposed to be there, at visitor control, you sat in a briefing where they told you the do’s and don’ts of the facility. (99% don’ts!). Then you walked out to a location where you unloaded all your bags and briefcases in front of security to show what you were carrying. While you were unloading, military police were there, under a sign that said “Capital Enforcement is in effect”, and they were pointing guns at her while her stuff was being examined!

At that point, pull out your gun and tell them you have a constitutional right to carry it.

That was before 911, I will bet the security has gotten less humorous since then.

Oh, another test, carry your handgun into the airport and try to board a plane.

You don't have to take a gun, just take a water bottle with you. Fight with TSA over it, make a fuss, don't surrender it at all costs.
 
The difference is, Slamfire, that you are now discussing interference with a flight crew in the performance of their duties, which is a defined federal felony.

Possession of a firearm inside the secure area, or secure area of the passenger terminal (depending) is a felony in most states. The federal regs get interesting, here. Try to get a straight answer, or even a consistent one, from the FAA about whether and how you can transport firearms on a private plane...

We difficult ones have been asking for either direct links to the defined federal felonies or else the appellate cases that bear directly on the OP.

So far, only ltc444 has provided such, maybe... He provided a laundry list of Title 50 codes that I don't have time to screen. It would be nice if somebody were to peruse those and glean out the appropriate verbiage.

The ability of a base commander to post regulations is not in question, nor is the ability of the commander to give his security forces orders to detain, or in certain circumstances, shoot.

What is in question is what actual charges could be applied to a non-DOD civilian, not subject to UCMJ, after initial detention and assuming he didn't get shot - and where those charges are specified and defined.

I don't think anybody has suggested becoming a test case. I think many of us like to see clearly defined (and limited) federal powers and would like to be able to read and cite the things that define (and limit) them.
 
mehavey, the section you cite links itself directly to 930, which is already under debate in this thread.

Thanks for the effort, though.

This is the problem, all the regs seem to point back to a reg that, in its own verbiage, is supposed to be minimally restrictive. That's not how it is being applied.
 
No, it is not very clear. "hunting or other lawful purposes" is pretty open-ended, unless there's a section that clearly defines what those other lawful purposes are, or better yet, a list of specifically unlawful purposes.

930 does not do that.

930 does say that the intent of the law is to be minimally restrictive, and its general focus is on sensitive areas and the interiors of administrative buildings, not the entire outdoor area of a facility.

So, when other regs use 930 for justification, we end up back in the same, aggravating circle of logic.
 
Code: 
18 U.S.C. § 930 : US Code - Section 930: Possession of firearms and dangerous
weapons in Federal facilities
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d),...
     (d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to.....
          (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons
               in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful
               purposes.

As a Commander, the hunting part is clear, at my discretion, and for the most part generally supported here at Belvoir as it has at every [large] base I'd ever been posted to.

Now "the other lawful purposes" part I also take to be at my [commander's] discretion to invoke orders having the power of law (i.e., lawful), and generally covers military members taking personal weapons to-and-fro/on-base to off-base to/from open post ranges and/or sanctioned events or locations (etc, etc, etc)

While a commander's orders have the power of law over military personnel, as a commander I would assume the prerogative of detaining civilian personnel found in violation (depending on circumstances) and let the marshals and federal court sort it out.

So far (and that's a question mark again), the courts have agreed with that implementation.
Until the courts do not, that's de facto law.

And as Peetzakilla notes, I wouldn't test it myself. ;)
 
In general, I agree w/ a commander's prerogatives to issue lawful regulations as they are held personally & totally responsible for anything that happens in his command. Unfortunately, recent history has increasingly made weapons crimes something which are not the fault of the individual, but that of "the System." The commander [and everyone else in the command chain] then gets nailed because it's their fault some idiot went postal.

So they minimize their exposure by what they [and the courts] consider "reasonable" regulation. Sometimes they go overboard (as happened at Ft Carson) and get reined by legislation. Sometimes they get caught in unfortunate circumstance resulting from their "reasonable" strictures (as in Ft Hood).

Personally, I'd consider giving First Sgts and company commanders-&-up CCW authority as they are under my direct control and extensions of command authority. But then I'm a TROG and get to watch from the sidelines now.... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
A web search shows statements as such:

http://www.vance.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123194229

Per Department of Defense Instruction 5200.08, the wing commander is granted "the responsibility and authority to enforce appropriate security measures to ensure the protection of DOD property and personnel assigned, attached, or subject to their control."

Vance Installation Security Instruction 31-101 states "no person shall bring onto this installation, or while on this installation have in their possession, any firearm or other dangerous weapon."

The Vance instruction also states, "Concealment of firearms or dangerous weapons on one's person, other than firearms or dangerous weapons authorized by the 71st Security Forces Squadron commander, the installation commander or higher authority, is prohibited."

Violations of these orders can and will be prosecuted with up to one year imprisonment under Title 50 U.S.C. Section 797, or through Article 92, "Failure to Obey Order or Regulation."
Click to expand...

Did not find a phone number at Vance Air Force Base, but USMC base Camp Pendleton has contact information on their page about weapons registration.

Anyone who wants to argue the law will probably be forwarded to someone who know the law.

http://www.marines.mil/unit/basecamppendleton/Pages/Information/weaponsRegistration.aspx

For questions concerning weapons registration aboard Camp Pendleton contact the Provost Marshal's Support Services Division at (760) 725-0819 / DSN: 365-0819 - Fax (760) 725-0820 / DSN: 365-0820.
Click to expand...

If you really want to test the legality of the thing, get arrested. Just spouting opinions on a web page won't change a thing. But if you get arrested you can appeal your conviction all the way up to the Supreme Court.
 
No, it is not very clear. "hunting or other lawful purposes" is pretty open-ended, unless there's a section that clearly defines what those other lawful purposes are, or better yet, a list of specifically unlawful purposes.
Click to expand...

The you are invited to make a case when you are found to have violated what every other person has tried to tell you is how the law is interpreted.

You do not get to define "lawful purposes" and if your activity has not been identified as a lawful purpose by the authority having jurisdiction over the facility you will lose.

If they have not identified anything, there are NO lawful purposes.

Good luck in your case.

You are going to need it.

You might want to review all the applicable case law, since some is very likely to be out there.
It carries the same weight as the statute law.
 
Looks like this statute is what I've been looking for.. I'll have to ponder it a bit. Thanks, Slamfire!

50 U.S.C. § 797 : US Code - Section 797: Penalty for violation of security regulations and orders
(a) Misdemeanor violation of defense property security regulations
(1) Misdemeanor
Whoever willfully violates any defense property security
regulation shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more
than one year, or both.
(2) Defense property security regulation described
For purposes of paragraph (1), a defense property security
regulation is a property security regulation that, pursuant to
lawful authority -
(A) shall be or has been promulgated or approved by the
Secretary of Defense (or by a military commander designated by
the Secretary of Defense or by a military officer, or a
civilian officer or employee of the Department of Defense,
holding a senior Department of Defense director position
designated by the Secretary of Defense) for the protection or
security of Department of Defense property; or
(B) shall be or has been promulgated or approved by the
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration for the protection or security of NASA property.
(3) Property security regulation described
For purposes of paragraph (2), a property security regulation,
with respect to any property, is a regulation -
(A) relating to fire hazards, fire protection, lighting,
machinery, guard service, disrepair, disuse, or other
unsatisfactory conditions on such property, or the ingress
thereto or egress or removal of persons therefrom; or
(B) otherwise providing for safeguarding such property
against destruction, loss, or injury by accident or by enemy
action, sabotage, or other subversive actions.
(4) Definitions
In this subsection:
(A) Department of Defense property
The term "Department of Defense property" means covered
property subject to the jurisdiction, administration, or in the
custody of the Department of Defense, any Department or agency
of which that Department consists, or any officer or employee
of that Department or agency.
(B) NASA property
The term "NASA property" means covered property subject to
the jurisdiction, administration, or in the custody of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration or any officer or
employee thereof.
(C) Covered property
The term "covered property" means aircraft, airports, airport
facilities, vessels, harbors, ports, piers, water-front
facilities, bases, forts, posts, laboratories, stations,
vehicles, equipment, explosives, or other property or places.
(D) Regulation as including order
The term "regulation" includes an order.
(b) Posting
Any regulation or order covered by subsection (a) of this section
shall be posted in conspicuous and appropriate places.
Click to expand...
 
brickeyee, I don't have a case, and multiple times in this thread I have said I don't recommend anybody becoming a test case.

I've asked for supporting documentation, because the sources people have cited have not really made the case.

You have supplied none, but you have certainly been snarky. I'm impressed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top