McDonald Decision and CCW on Military Bases

JonnyP

New member
Now that this decision has reaffirmed the right to bear arms, any takes on how or if this will affect the current ban of personal firearms on military installations?

The "ban" of which I speak is not with regard to storage. I am interested in the current ban which prevents those of us who work on base from CCW while on base.

So the question really is, "Since my state has provided me a permit allowing me to CCW for personal protection in accordance with state law, can a US military installation within my state prohibit me from carrying while on base?"
 
Seeing as how it was not the state or municipality restricting the ability to keep and bear arms on base, I don't think McDonald would have any bearing on the situation.

Even though there is no one single federal policy re: firearms on military bases (as far as I am aware, to my knowledge it's up to the base commander), it's still handled by the federal level of government (the military).

I'm not sure that anything is going to force military bases to allow CCW. Just not going to happen short of Ted Nugent moving into the White House, and I just don't find that a likely future.
 
I joined the Army. Guess what? I have whatever Constitutional rights the Army, in its wisdom, decides that I have.

:rolleyes:

I don't like it, but MacDonald and Heller are not magic swords that are going to cut down every anti-gun law or regulation I, you, or anyone else doesn't like.
 
So the question really is, "Since my state has provided me a permit allowing me to CCW for personal protection in accordance with state law, can a US military installation within my state prohibit me from carrying while on base?"

Yep. They are federal property, it doesn't matter what the state allows or doesn't allow. This ruling has no bearing on it. I have a permit for CT but I can't bring a firearm on the base. Just last week when I was out with my family I would have liked to stop at the commisary for some groceries but I was carrying.
 
Military bases are federal property and are NOT under state law. It's about the equivalent of you trying to conceal carry in NJ. NJ doesn't recognize any other states carry permit, so if you got caught you'd get a one way ticket to jail.

Now if you had some sort of federal equivalent, say as a requirement for being in the FBI or something you'd probably be allowed... at least if you were on duty
 
A military base, like Washington D.C. is a "federal enclave", or so I would think. I could of course be entirely wrong here.

Given that fact, I would think that USSC in Heller v. D.C. would prevail, however as another poster offered, as a soldier, you have such civil rights as the army deems appropriate. How this would effect civilians on a military post, who knows.
 
How this would effect civilians on a military post, who knows.

I am retired military, hence a civilian. You cannot bring a firearm on the base period whether military or civilian except in an official capacity.
 
Also I've been looking at the ruling and I believe their are allowances made for federal buildings and military bases that still allow them to be prohibited.

There will NEVER be a changed to the ccw law on a military base. Sorry.
 
Here's a link and pasted article relevant to this subject. (I'm using the Navy since I'm retired Navy, other branches might have different policy)

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=54055

NORFOLK (NNS) -- The Navy announced a policy change regarding personal firearms to consolidate and clarify the requirements for those who own these weapons.

The NAVADMIN detailing the new policy is available at http://www.persnet.navy.mil/NR/rdonlyres/BCB24012-BC52-4E88-B20F-A509B1C744B7/0/NAV10196.txt. The change to OPNAVINST 5530.14E came after a review of existing policy indicated that there were inconsistencies in the way personal firearm regulations were enacted across the fleet, according to Rear Adm. Arthur J. Johnson, Commander, Naval Safety Center.

However, he emphasized that the policy change should not make life more difficult for those who choose to own weapons.

"This policy is more of a clarification than a change," said Johnson. "It's not meant to make owning a personal firearm more restrictive for Sailors. Instead, it aligns policy across the enterprise so Sailors know what's expected of them if they do own a firearm."

One highlight of the new policy is the ability for all Sailors to store their personal firearms in base housing or armories (when space is available), so long as they receive prior written approval from the installation commanding officer. Weapons must be stored in a locked container, a locked gun rack, or secured with approved trigger locks to keep the weapon from firing.

Weapons are still prohibited in other on-base locations, such as bachelor enlisted or bachelor officer quarters, work centers, and vehicles.

The policy also clarifies that Sailors must comply with all federal, state, and local laws, and that concealed weapons are never allowed on Navy installations, regardless of local law.
(Emphasis mine)
 
Heller would be the case to cite for carry on military bases, but given Alito's sensitive place doctrine, it would not have much chance to win. Congress is were it is at if you want to have carry on military bases. You would need a bill that extends the current National Park carry rights to military bases hopefully along with other prohibited federal lands and post offices.
 
You cannot bring a firearm on the base period whether military or civilian except in an official capacity.

Almost right but slightly off...You can bring a firearm on a military installation but in order to do so it must be for the purpose of having it locked in a Arms Room and requires some paper work through the Provost Marshalls office and your unit. (Unless this has changed since 2007)

Soldiers that live in the barracks can and do own weapons but they can't access any weapons stored in the arms room without the Commanders Permission.

Typically not a huge problem for hunting as it tends to be seasonal but a real pain for target shooters like myself.
 
^^^

Thanks for clarifying. That's correct, there is a policy for gun storage on base. I was thinking along the lines of carry, open or concealed.
 
Almost right but slightly off...You can bring a firearm on a military installation but in order to do so it must be for the purpose of having it locked in a Arms Room and requires some paper work through the Provost Marshalls office and your unit. (Unless this has changed since 2007)

You can also bring weapons onto installations that have a shooting range, if the range allows recreational shooting. Of course, you should proceed directly to the range once you're on base, and leave base immediately after you're done shooting.
 
Yep, I shot trap on Pendleton as a civilian, he is enlisted. We rented guns but you can bring your own, it has to be checked and I believe locked at the gate.
 
I joined the Army. Guess what? I have whatever Constitutional rights the Army, in its wisdom, decides that I have.

Thanks for your service. I spent over 20 years in the US Army. The lack of certain "rights" never bothered me one bit.
 
No argument the ban is apparently in place. No argument there are exceptions for storage on base. But the question still remains, "Why is this so?" A little justification other than "because that's the way it is" would be nice.

It just seems very strange to me that military and civilians can carry while off base but not while on base. If we can be trusted with guns in the sandbox, why not here at home? Similarly, if we can be trusted to carry while off base, why not on base?

Just doesn't pass the common sense test.
 
My Army experience (1967-1971 on Active Duty) and later in the Reserves (1976-1998) was that the Army is a very pantywaist organization and too many commanders would just as soon as not be bothered with small arms and the firearms enthusiast is derided as a "nut". My last year of AD in Germany 1970-1971 we didn't take firearms on guard duty and there were no rifle and pistol teams. Also the military is currently under an anti-gun CinC.
 
The courts will defer to the authority of the military, as granted by congress and the presidnet, to exercise command and control over it's personnnel and it's bases. I don't agree with the way the military treats personally owned weapons or CCW but you aren't going to get a court decision over ruling the authority of the military to decide those issues.

The military is a unique insitution that is and will be granted wide lattitude in this area most likely under the sensitive places doctrine.



Also the military is currently under an anti-gun CinC

The policy on the carrying, use, and storage of firearms on base has nothing to do with the current president. As you note it's been that way for awhile.

There's also 18 USC 930 to contend with.

Also how do you deal with CCW during duty hours?
 
Also the military is currently under an anti-gun CinC

Also the military is currently under an anti-gun CinC

That makes no difference at all,,,
I was in when Reagan was our CinC,,,
He was an NRA Life Member and we couldn't even have a bow and arrows.

Military mindset is all about having total control over it's members,,,
if you are not in combat you don't need combat tools.

I carried over six out of eight years in the USAF,,,
And I was not security or law enforcement,,,
I just had a very weird job,,,
And a weirder boss.

.
 
I don't think it's a question of control so much as "Can't be bothered". Also the military is more about avoiding blame and responsibility than it is about control. The loss of a small arm is a far more serious offense than losing a multimillion dollar aircraft. Again, my experience-in 1967-1971-was the Army saw little if any need for small arms proficiency and it was much simpler to keep the weapons under lock and key where they could be accounted for.
 
Back
Top