UPDATE - Personal Firearms on Military Installations

The post commander has pretty much absolute authority over their installations.

If they choose not to allow firearms to be carried on the installation there is nothing you can do about it.

You have to convince the policy makers to change the policy. However those making the policy are so risk averse that they won't do it. A more permissive policy regarding firearms on base offers no advantage to the policy maker and cwould likely be used to relieve them in the event something happens.

What incentive does the post commander have to allow CCW on base?

The only thing that allowing CCW does is increase the risk that the post commander will get fired for going against the grain.

The only way this is goign to change if congress legislates on the matter and I just don't see that happening.

Also, CCW on base wouldn't have stopped the Fort Hod shooting. Army Regualtion 190-14 expressely forbids Soldiers from carrying other than government issued firearms while on duty.

The regulation states:

Only Government-owned, and Government-issued weapons and ammunition are authorized to be carried by DA personnel while performing official duties. The Secretary of the Army may authorize an exception to this requirement for Army investigative organizations.
Click to expand...
 
peetzakilla said:
First, we know who has the power, the Secretary of Defense and the base commanders have the power.
Click to expand...

Are those the only people with the power?

If so, a sympathetic and open minded CO might be found at some installation.

If after a few years of no issues, or an incedient where the policy change saves lives, more could be convinced.


As it stands, the most likely course will require terrible incedents on base where people who violate the rules save lives. They will likely be myrters, for the cause, but at some point public support will lead to rule changes.

We've seen things going that way following school shootings where teachers/administrators had access in violation of the rules and saved lived.
(See Pearl High in Mississippi)
 
There is a DoD level policy on the matter. DoD Directive 5210.56 (dated 2001) was the one I have seen.

I think the biggest argument against the idea is a span of control/security issue. Simply put, the military wants STRICT accountability of who has weapons and where on any DoD instalation.

On the other hand, I think the lawsuit might actually be most advantageous for military victims' families (not much consolation though :(). Who better to argue the "what if" than some infantry type who had regular training with firearms in tactical situations? (Yes, I realize that certainly does not apply to all DoD members, but it is a better argument than the same idea from "avg. Joe.")

NOTE: the Pearl MS vice principle DID follow the rules. That is why he had to make a quarter-mile run to his car to retrieve his firearm!
 
Last edited:
Arbitrary are be fun, until ...

Fortune smiled upon me, the last time I went to my V.A. on appointment. Every time before, IF I carried [concealed w State license], as I entered the "base / installation / reservation" I would stop in at the guard-shack and check my weapon into a lock-box, take the key and proceed. Guide-line prominently displayed at entrance through the gates. Reverse this process when leaving. Then one day I arrived, having just picked up my Bushmaster Carbon-15 .556 pistol from my FFL dealer. I carried it in my briefcase to the guard-shack. Pandemonium ensued! The rules had been changed due to HSA "suggestion" [edict] and I was instantly an offender in the $2000 / 5-yr penalty zone without any get-out-free card. My CCW was not valid against "Didn't you read the sign" interrogation. Well, yes ... no, but the sign is still the same as before ... 12" x 18", yellow letters on a chocolate-brown sign. Same as it alw -- -- Oops! The words ARE different! The total shock on my face must have been enough for the main Pistol-packer, who always had taken each of my arms and locked them away was the very one explaining the " $2000 / 5-yr." part to me. He relented after a stern explanation, took briefcase and all and locked all in his own locker. On my way out, I dropped in and got my goodies from him. "This is not funny, and never happened, did it?" I confirmed that. I have yet to know who changed the "base / installation / reservation" rules on CCW, but from the tenor of opinion here, I don't it necessary to find out. I now visit my FFL shop on the way OUT of town. HS.444
 
raimius said:
NOTE: the Pearl MS vice principle DID follow the rules. That is why he had to make a quarter-mile run to his car to retrieve his firearm!
Click to expand...

And as soon as he came back with it he broke the rules.

But no one really cared at that point.
There was some talk of charging him in the days following, but that was quickly stopped due to public opinion.

It'll take similar incidents on base to get the attention of the right people and get public opinion pushing the right way.
 
raimius,

Thanks for pointing out DoD Directive 5210.56. This contains the most precise guidance I have seen. I don't like what it says, but at least it's more definitive than other sources I've seen.
 
You and me both!

Any DoD guidance that states its intention is to limit the arming of DoD personnel (and the bit about individuals being armed for personal protection needing specific review/authorization) really puts a cramp in the idea of a base commander trying to allow CCW on base. It is just too easy for someone against the idea to say "See you are violating the intent of the DoD's regulations!" Even if they could find a way to meet the letter of the directive without rediculous levels of bureaucracy, I think they would get shut down pretty quickly.

It's rather frustrating to those of us who would like the option.
 
It's kind of amazing to me how that sort of directive can be taken to me that personal on personal time can not be armed.... the directive clearly states, more than once, that it applies to ON DUTY personal.

"SUBJECT: Use of Deadly Force and the Carrying of Firearms by DoD Personnel Engaged in Law Enforcement and Security Duties"


"1. REISSUANCE AND PURPOSE
This Directive reissues reference (a) and implements the provisions of reference (b) that govern the carrying of firearms and the use of deadly force by DoD military and civilian personnel performing law enforcement and security duties..."



Even though references to DoD personal and civilians in later sections are "generic", normal english comprehension skills should dictate that the subject matter has not changed.

(Yes, I know, normal english comprehension does not apply to government and particularly government lawyers.)
 
I noticed something very interesting, by the way, in paragraph E1.1.3 of DoD Directive 5210.56 that's different from paragraph 2-2d in AR 190-14:

The directive adds the words "in overseas areas" in the first sentence.

Without that addition, AR 190-14 might, it could be argued, provide a means to arm ourselves right here at home if the "intelligence center identifies a credible and specific threat against DoD personnel in that regional area."

According to what I read, we're sunk.
 
A little late in this, nevertheless....

MadHatter1 said:
JohnnyP said:
As far as "rights" go, currently there is NO right to CCW based on current court decisions.
Click to expand...
This is what I would like to see in writing.
Click to expand...

OK. See, e.g. Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154 (1840); State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612 (1840); Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846); State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489 (1850); Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165 (1871); In re Brickey, 70 P. 609 (Idaho 1902); State v. Rosenthal, 55 A. 610 (Vt. 1903); State v. Kerner, 107 S.E. 222 (N.C. 1921); City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 485 P.2d 737 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971); State v. Delgado, 692 P.2d 210 (Or. 1984); State ex rel. City of Princeton v. Buckner, 377 S.E.2d 139 (W. Va. 1988); Kellogg v. City of Gary, 562 N.E.2d 685 (Ind. 1990).

Then read the Heller decision, which quoted and used 4 of the above decisions to show that limits, restrictions or outright bans on CC are perfectly valid.

I believe the right most certainly DOES exist, but is simply being ignored.
Click to expand...

No, it is not being ignored. There are currently dozens of cases that are trying to get the courts to recognize CC as a right, when OC is banned. That's what Heller implied.
 
Since I don't pretend to understand the Heller or McDonald decisions in their entirety, I would like some clarification, in plain English, as to the following:

Why is it that a person working on a military installation, whether a military member of the armed forces living on- or off-base, a civilian employee of the armed forces, a family member living on base, or a contractor with an office on base, retains the 2nd Amendment right to CCW (with a permit, of course) while OFF base, but is forced to give up that right while ON base?

What is so different about being on- or off-base?

Anybody?
 
...and before anybody answers...

I fully understand there are regulations and directives giving the government the authority to ban CCW while on base...but that's not what I mean.

Perhaps a different perspective will make my question a little clearer:

Right now, it is perfectly legal and accepted for soldiers to CCW while off base. The current policy banning CCW while on base would seem to suggest there is some magical instinct that kicks in when a soldier crosses the gate to a military installation making him "aching for a fight" that doesn't exist while he's off base. It's as though the government feels these soldiers will somehow become "out of control" while on base, but they don't seem to have that concern while these same soldiers are off base. When was the last time anyone heard of an incident where soldiers were shooting each other up while off base just because they can carry there? I've never heard of one incident.

So again, what's the difference between CCW on base vs. off?
 
I'm with thallub on this.
I support the Commander's right to decide such things.

If anyone here thinks they are going to change it you are just "Whistling Dixie."

Regards,
Jerry
 
JonnyP said:
So again, what's the difference between CCW on base vs. off?
Click to expand...


There is no difference.


There's also no difference when I cross the threshold onto Post Office property, onto a college campus or a high school, Chuckie Cheese, a court house or other government building..... or any other place that prohibits carry. Yet there are tens of thousands of such places.



Listen, you're preaching to the choir. We almost all agree that it's a senseless rule. It's also not going to change.
 
Actually, there is a big difference, from the government's point of view. ON the military base, there are numerous things related to national security -- information, computers, equipment, facilities, personnel -- and the government needs to protect those assets. The government does so in the way that seems best to the high level policy makers, which in this case seems to include tight controls on who is armed on the base -- DoD police, MPs, security guards, and soldiers in certain circumstances.

OFF base....the state's rules apply, and the federal government is less involved -- and less responsible, and less concerned.

I agree that many personnel would be a good deal safer if we could carry on base. I work as a DoD civilian, and I'd like to be able to carry. But those who make policy are more concerned with protecting high priority assets than allowing individuals to protect themselves.
 
Why is it that a person working on a military installation, whether a military member of the armed forces living on- or off-base, a civilian employee of the armed forces, a family member living on base, or a contractor with an office on base, retains the 2nd Amendment right to CCW (with a permit, of course) while OFF base, but is forced to give up that right while ON base?
Click to expand...
Because when you go ON base you enter someone else's house. Their house, their rules. I won't let anyone I don't know CC in my house, or any of a hundred other things. Would you let some random person come into your kitchen and just help them-self to whatever is in your fridge and then put their feet up on your coffee table and watch your tv?
 
IMO: This is a very good thing. I do not want gang wars fought on base with concealed weapons. Yep, the US Army has a big gang problem.
Click to expand...

Yes Top, I agree that the Army has a huge, gigantic gang problem.... but you and I both know the gang members simply do not go without their guns unless the higher ups in the gangs order it, it has nothing to do with legal law. So my family and I have had to try to live next to and across from bangers who are armed and engaged in every crime under the sun while the best we can muster is a bat and a bad attitude. (no longer since I retired)

Gangs leaders may order bangers to hide weapons but its for some purpose such as hiding someones identity that might come to light if they were to face a serious charge. (example; If someone commits murder in the civilian world, uses someone elses identity to join the army to "disappear" for a few years)

The military exist to protect and defend the constitution and the people of the United States, we above all people should be the ones honoring its words.
I know you know this Top but for our other friends here in this forum we swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution and not just the physical paper.

I know we can't overnight or maybe even over several years change some set in stone regulation like this, but you know every storm starts with a drop of rain and works into a fury that leaves the land smelling clean and free.

We need to be those first few drops that start a storm that sweeps the dust off rights we should be enjoying by enlightening those around us and engageing those who may simply need to be informed.

Sometimes it takes a lot of rain to make new grass grow but it all starts in places like this... We have little to loose and everything to gain.
 
Last edited:
We need to be those first few drops that start a storm that sweeps the dust off rights we should be enjoying by enlightening those around us and engageing those who may simply need to be informed.

Sometimes it takes a lot of rain to make new grass grow but it all starts in places like this... We have little to loose and everything to gain.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better, BGutzman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top