Firearms on military property

Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems that some people are conflating "security" with "law enforcement."

Those are not the same.

From my limited involvement with a couple of security units on the Navy side of the house:

1) Security personnel can and will stop and detain persons for any number of reasons; this may involve the use of deadly force, based on guidance from the base commander and higher. (Security units are departmental level, not independent commands, and report to the base. Security Officers are department heads, or OICs, not Commanding Officers.) This is NOT a law enforcement function.

2) Security personnel, if they suspect a crime has been committed, turn over findings to NCIS for actual criminal investigation. In some cases, the FBI might actually have jurisdiction. In some cases, evidence may be turned over to local authorities. Security departments do not really deal with criminal prosecutions, aside from possibly providing evidence or testimony. I would be surprised if most security personnel could actually cite federal codes defining felonies, as that is not within their normal purview.

3) DOD personnel, subject to UCMJ, can be court-martialed for failure to obey a lawful order, or various other articles.

4) Non DOD-personnel are often dealt with adminstratively, not judicially, typically by revocation of security clearances and loss of base access (and quite likely employment). On overseas bases, this may often result in deportation by the host country.

5) The ability of a base commander to set security policy is not in question. The ability of base security personnel to detain persons they suspect of violating base regulations is not in question. What is in question is how the federal judicial system will address any potential criminal charges, and what laws would come into play.

The document cited by Slamfire would seem to imply the actual charge would effectively be armed trespass.

I would still like to see a legislative definition of what constitutes "other lawful purposes."

It seems some folks are quite happy to say, "That's how it is."

Ironically, many of those are the same people who are ardent proponents, in other threads, of 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendment rights. I would think they'd actually want to be able to read the source documents, too.

I'm still baffled as to how hostile some posters have been, because some of us would like to see what authorities actually exist, how they are derived, and how they have been applied.
 
Unless one is a very, very experienced lawyer with bales of money just sitting around the house (and a deep stack of bales at that) I highly, highly recommend not messing with military laws and regulations...

It is almost a guarnteed loss in all cases regardless of circumstances...

You want to change military law then run for president and give a lawful order defining whatever you feel the regulation needs (imperial decree I believe is the current term) after your sworn in..
 
BGutzman, the entire point is that the military cannot create law that has any jurisdiction over those not bound by the UCMJ.

It's not about "military law."

And defining laws is EXACTLY what Congress is supposed to do, just as interpreting laws is EXACTLY what the courts are supposed to do.

People are treating Military Regulations as though they are laws. They are not.
 
I understand the U.C.M.J. only applies to military but I know from 21 years of active duty military experience that anyone coming onto federally controlled property under the perview of the military will loose almost any legal action by default.

Im not saying its right but I am telling you what my eyes have seen... The military as an organization is in many places as anti gun as you could ever possibly dream... The Dantes Inferno of gun rights..

Lots of bases and forts have open ranges but outside the conduct of simply shooting at the range most post simply do not want guns of any non military kind on them... As a implimentation of the nanny service the military is to its members guns are the great safety hazard....

I cant cound the number of times Ive been shot at and not had bullets (on active duty and deployed) to defend myself, if I was even allowed to carry a evil weapon.... Better a dead soldier than making making national news. The war has opened things up a bit but dont kid yourself its still a nanny machine.
 
Last edited:
Sorry if you think being "snarky" is telling you how the law IS being enforced.

You have failed to do your own homework on case law, and I am not about to waste my time doing ot for you.

You do not get to define 'lawful purposes" and if the person in control of the facility has not defined then, there are NONE.
 
thallub, the problem is the federal laws being cited are either vague, or conflict with each other as to intent.

The case law cited, so far, has been about assimilation of a state law.

I'm not asking how things are being done, I'm asking for the legal rationale as to how they are being done.

For the last time, I'm not suggesting that people should deliberately defy the posted signs, nor deliberately become test cases. I am asking for accountability, from the government, as to what regulations they are actually using, and how the application of those regulations jibes with the way the federal codes are actually written.

I do think the VA parking lots are likely to result in a test case before terribly long.
 
http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/1-218-security-law-enforcement-facilities-19775619

38 CFR 1.218 - Security and law enforcement at VA facilities.
Code of Federal Regulations - Title 38: Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief

(13) Weapons and explosives. No person while on property shall carry firearms, other
dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, except for
official purposes.

At first I thought we were talking about weapons locked away in trunks, but the
prohibition is clearly against carrying.

Seems pretty clear.
Certainly no less clear than 18 U.S.C. 93 & 797, both of which are Law, and are
the statutory authority for the implementing Regs that follow.
 
In response to post 68.

When I first entered this discussion I noted that most of the commenters do not understand how a Law is instituted. In the case of the Military, more so than civilian institutions the Devil is in the details.

Those details are contained in the following:

1. The Code of Federal Regulations. (pay particular attention to the Footnotes and exemptions which are buried in very fine print.)
2. Executive Orders. These orders may be published or unpublished. I once imported materials banned by the Toxic Substance Control Act using an unpublished Executive Order.
3. DoD regulations.
4. Major Command regulations.
5. Major Subordinate Command regulations.
6. Base Regulations.
5. Unit SOPs. I once banned members of my unit from renting cars from a major Rental Car Agency because they refused to rent a car to me during a mission. My prohibition was upheld and the agency was removed from the Armys authorized car rental list. Not bad for a 1Lt.
6. A Presidential Finding. This is not published and generally close held. Unit Commanders will be given an order and it will be carried out. If it violates someones "rights" so be it. The Commander nor his/her subordinates will not be held liable for those rights violations.

In short if a Commander decides to ban Civilians carrying Firearms or ban nonaffliliated civilians from entering a Military Reservation he has the authority to do so. The ban will be enforced my Military Personnel, The offender will be held in Military Custody while the investigation is conducted and may or maynot be allowed to contact outside persons or agencies during the course of his stay.

I know of an exairman who entered Whitman AFB with an expired sticker. When he attempted to leave he was detained. He was held 72 hours before he was allowed to contact his wife or his Attorney. He found that he had no recourse in the Courts for his detention.

In short as has been stated in prior post, unless you have a whole lot of money and are prepared to spend a lot of time in a Federal Detention Facility,

DO NOT CHALLENGE A COMMANDERS AUTHORITY ON A Military Reservation or Facility. You will loose.
 
I know someone who got caught with his at the gate search and they just about drew a bead on him, they field striped it and turned him around with his gun in pieces.
 
Well... living on an air force base (I am writing this now from my quarters), and being a shooter... all I can say is at this particular base, we can bring firearms on base and keep them in quarters without any hassle at all, and no registration. I joined the rod and gun club the first day I checked in, and we shoot skeet every Saturday, with 50+ guys shooting and everyone using their own shotguns. Every third Saturday we have high power rifle on the combat weapons range... again no hassle, no nonsense. We carry weapons and ammo separately, cased, and just like you would carry to the range anywhere in the civilian world.

The Wing Commander here (1 Star General) is a shooter BTW...


Willie
 
I'm asking for the legal rationale as to how they are being done.
Click to expand...

The person in charge of the facility defines what is "official purposes" and "lawful purposes."

If they have NOT defined these categories THERE ARE NOT ANY besides those granted in the statutory and case law.

NONE.

YOU do not get to define them.

There is not much to point to because this is the mechanism used.

Laws presuppose an enforcement mechanism exists.
They do not need to identify it in every law.

Someone is in control of the facility, and just as with private property, that person controls what may and may not be allowed on the facility.
For military installations the 'in charge' person is usually clearly defined by command structure and orders.

For other government property it can sometimes get hard to trace down a single person, but they are there somewhere.

I routine enter bases and other government facilities.
They have varying level of security form open bases with ID checks to facilities with armed private guards and 100% ID check.

And no badge means no entry, please report to the visitors center for a detailed ID check and to see if you are on the visit request (VR) log.
No VR, no entry.

The higher security places do not allow ANY guns, besides those carried by security.
Not for hunting, not for the military, not for anyone.

For those under their control, you will be banned from the facility, possibly fired, have security clearances yanked for any violation.
For anyone else you will have an appointment in Federal District Court to talk with a judge.

As the owner of the property, the feds get to set the rules.

If you bring a firearm onto a federal enclave without specific permission it is NOT going to go well for you.

You WILL KNOW if you have permission.

If you have to search trying to find it, you DO NOT HAVE IT.

It is really that simple.

And yes, a couple of times I have been granted permission for special reasons.
It WAS a big deal.
ALL involved KNEW it was a big deal, and treated it that way.

Once it took a meeting with a 3-star to get permission.
 
Mcheavy. No argument. My rcurring point is that
1. The USC is the source of law.
2. The CFR is the controlling regulation.
3. In National Security situations (Military Installations, DOE Facilities and other facilities the source of the rules and the rules themselves become cloudy.

Having spent almost 30 years dealing with Federal and State regulations as it applys to Explosives and the associated HAZMAT, I have learned that INTENT has little to do with the actual implimentation of a law. In some cases the implementing regulations bear little resembliance to law they are supposed enable.

The recent lower court decisions on 5A prove my point.

On a National Security Installation, the mere presence of a violation is proof of intent. The fact that you inadverntly wander in to a "security area" while legally hunting on a Defense Installation does not matter. You are there you are guilty.

If you are lucky you will get a warning. If you are not lucky then you are in for a hard time. If you are really unlucky you will be in a "Hurt Locker"

The catagory of you problem will in large measure be determined by the Installation Commander and the policies he established to protect the specific installation and the actual or precieved threat level.

Note: I said Threat Level not actual threat.

When dealing with the civilan Justice system, as some often discussed in this forum, it is very easy to get in trouble.

When dealing with "National Secruity Facilities", ones chances of screwing up is increased by several orders of magnitude.

As a young EOD Officer, it was my duty to recover several individuals who paid the ultimate price for trespassing in a restricted area. One we removed in baggies.

Unlike normal governmental process, Violations of Military rules and regulations, even by civilians, can be swift and final.
 
I know of an exairman who entered Whitman AFB with an expired sticker. When he attempted to leave he was detained. He was held 72 hours before he was allowed to contact his wife or his Attorney. He found that he had no recourse in the Courts for his detention.
Click to expand...
I don't see how that complies with his Article 31 rights, unless they never questioned him...:confused:
...or by exairman, do you mean he was no longer military when he tried to enter?
 
Law enforcement on military installations

Many people have the misconception that the UCMJ is the ONLY enforcement mechanism available to deal with violations on military property, and this is incorrect.

On a military base, if you are a military member you are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). If you were charged with a violation of the UCMJ you'd be dealt with by your chain of command.

If you are a dependent, civilian employee, or visitor you are subject to federal law OR state law adopted by that installation under the assimilative crimes act. Under most circumstances (traffic violation, disorderly conduct, etc.) you'd be issued a DD Form 1805 citation and you would then appear in Federal Magistrate's court.

The Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, makes state law applicable to conduct occurring on lands reserved or acquired by the Federal government as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 7(3), when the act or omission is not made punishable by an enactment of Congress.

Prosecutions instituted under this statute are not to enforce the laws of the state, but to enforce Federal law, the details of which, instead of being recited, are adopted by reference. In addition to minor violations, the statute has been invoked to cover a number of serious criminal offenses defined by state law such as burglary and embezzlement. However, the Assimilative Crimes Act cannot be used to override other Federal policies as expressed by acts of Congress or by valid administrative orders.

Installation commanders can create and enforce their own rules.

The Assimilative Crimes Act allows the Federal Government to adopt certain state laws by reference.

(For example: I don't know how it works in other states, but I work part time for a couple of little towns and in their municipal code they have just adopted by reference the state traffic and criminal code for civil violations. Such violations are then dealt with in municipal court. The wording on the citation might be "Ord 3.01 adopting ss. 947.01 Disorderly Conduct" (Civil violations or civil forfeitures are violations for which the penalty is a fine. If part of the potential penalty could be time in jail, that would be a misdemeanor handled in county circuit court, and if part of the potential penalty is time in prison, that's a felony, also handled by the circuit court. Different states have different terminology and procedures)

A violation of a base regulation involving a non-military person would be dealt with in Federal Magistrate's Court, and could result in a fine and being barred from the base.

A current active MP or SP or DoD police officer could probably explain it better as far as how the procedure works. (I was an SP and an MP in the National Guard and I'm a "civilian" cop now, but I've been retired from the military since 2000 so my ability to explain some of this stuff is rusty)
 
Last edited:
Ft Hood regulation on firearms

For example, I just found this on the net. It's a link to the regulations about firearms on military property for Fort Hood in Texas:

Fort Hood regulation 190-11

http://www.hood.army.mil/dhr/pubs/fhr190-11.pdf

A military installation can create rules for the installation that are not otherwise noted in federal law, the same way a county or municipality can adopt county ordinances or municipal ordinances that are not otherwise part of state law.
 
Jurisdiction on military installations

How violations committed by a non-military member on a military installation also depends upon the jurisdiction of that particular installation:

Exclusive jurisdiction is when the federal government assumes sole jurisdiction of a designated area.

■Federal criminal jurisdiction.

■Only federal authorities have the power to act.

■State authorities have no power over any violations committed.

■Federal authorities enforce all violations of federal laws or assimilated state laws.

Concurrent jurisdiction means the state retains the right to simultaneously exercise its authority along with that of the federal government.

■Federal criminal jurisdiction exists.

■Both state and federal governments have the power to enforce the law.

■State authorities enforce state laws.

■Federal authorities enforce federal laws and assimilated state laws.

Proprietary jurisdiction applies to instances in which the federal government has acquired some rights or title of ownership to an area in a state but has not obtained jurisdiction.

■Not under federal criminal jurisdiction.

■Basically the federal government has the same rights as a property owner.

■State laws are enforced by state courts.

■Federal laws are enforced by federal courts.

■State laws may not be assimilated.

Assimilated Crimes Act. Acts or omissions occurring in an area under federal jurisdiction, those that would constitute crimes if the area were under exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction, will constitute similar crimes, similarly punishable, under federal law.

■Federal criminal jurisdiction must exist.

■There is no violation of federal law.

■Only state law may be assimilated.

I just talked to one of the cops I work with who was a former active duty MP in the army. At both of the posts where he was stationed, the military had concurrent jurisdiction. Where he was they had a memorandum of understanding with the local county circuit court. If citing a non-military person for a violation, the violation was written on the appropriate state citation and the case was referred to county circuit court.
 
I must be missing something here.

Is ANYONE still arguing there is an apt legal challenge to carry on a military base? If so they need to go back and read everything again. It has all been posted.
 
I just talked to one of the cops I work with who was a former active duty MP in the army. At both of the posts where he was stationed, the military had concurrent jurisdiction. Where he was they had a memorandum of understanding with the local county circuit court. If citing a non-military person for a violation, the violation was written on the appropriate state citation and the case was referred to county circuit court.
Click to expand...

And if there is no state citation applicable?

Nobody is arguing that possession on a base is, de facto, ok.

At least one of us is asking for specific language that supports current policy, from the appropriate federal regs.

The majority seem happy with vaguely worded codes and statutes. Given the attitude toward such laws in any venue other than military bases, this attitude really puzzles me, said the military retiree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top