In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Private firearms carry on military bases-NEW RULES
andrewsw16
Member Posts: 10,728 ✭✭✭
Is now authorized after jumping through some hoops. At least it is a crack in the wall.[:D] New DoD order sets the new procedures. Not sure if it applies to anyone or just active duty. We'll see.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/21/dod-releases-plan-allow-personnel-carry-firearms-base.html?ESRC=airforce-a_161123.nl
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/21/dod-releases-plan-allow-personnel-carry-firearms-base.html?ESRC=airforce-a_161123.nl
Comments
Anyhow...just my thoughts.
From the verbiage, it sounds like the provision ALLOWS commanders (O5 and above) to grant permission to carry. However, it does not appear to REQUIRE them to do so. In my experience, senior officers tend to be pretty risk averse when it comes to issues of liability that could affect their career. Bottom line is that if someone has an "incident" (from negligence or otherwise), it will fall on the CO who granted permission. As such, I wouldn't expect to see many base commanders actually allowing it.
Anyhow...just my thoughts.
We are talking about soldiers that carry guns, right?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by DBV
From the verbiage, it sounds like the provision ALLOWS commanders (O5 and above) to grant permission to carry. However, it does not appear to REQUIRE them to do so. In my experience, senior officers tend to be pretty risk averse when it comes to issues of liability that could affect their career. Bottom line is that if someone has an "incident" (from negligence or otherwise), it will fall on the CO who granted permission. As such, I wouldn't expect to see many base commanders actually allowing it.
Anyhow...just my thoughts.
We are talking about soldiers that carry guns, right?
Yeah the same ones that when on guard duty have to carry them chamber empty, or atleast prior to 9/11 they did. I had some co-workers that were MPs in Germany, driving marked police vans, working gates and doing traffic stops and they had to carry chamber empty.
quote:Originally posted by DBV
From the verbiage, it sounds like the provision ALLOWS commanders (O5 and above) to grant permission to carry. However, it does not appear to REQUIRE them to do so. In my experience, senior officers tend to be pretty risk averse when it comes to issues of liability that could affect their career. Bottom line is that if someone has an "incident" (from negligence or otherwise), it will fall on the CO who granted permission. As such, I wouldn't expect to see many base commanders actually allowing it.
Anyhow...just my thoughts.
We are talking about soldiers that carry guns, right?
The vast majority of military personnel do not carry weapons in the course of their daily duties, on a regular basis.
My point is that DOD has placed the judgment (and hence the responsibility) on installation commanders. If they sign off on it and there is an incident on their base, guess who's going to be held responsible (i.e. somebody is losing their command)? Given that, I just doubt many will accept that level of risk to their careers.
I hope I'm wrong, because I would love to be able to carry on base.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by DBV
From the verbiage, it sounds like the provision ALLOWS commanders (O5 and above) to grant permission to carry. However, it does not appear to REQUIRE them to do so. In my experience, senior officers tend to be pretty risk averse when it comes to issues of liability that could affect their career. Bottom line is that if someone has an "incident" (from negligence or otherwise), it will fall on the CO who granted permission. As such, I wouldn't expect to see many base commanders actually allowing it.
Anyhow...just my thoughts.
We are talking about soldiers that carry guns, right?
Yeah the same ones that when on guard duty have to carry them chamber empty, or atleast prior to 9/11 they did. I had some co-workers that were MPs in Germany, driving marked police vans, working gates and doing traffic stops and they had to carry chamber empty.
Active duty MP,Ft.Wood,Mo. '77-'79,CHAMBER EMPTY!!!!
OK by me, and I didn't ask whether the chamber was loaded. Betting it was though.
Back in 1980, I was in basic academy with some USAF SPs. They carried revolvers, S&W model 15s. Kinda hard to carry one of those chamber empty.
They did not set Guidelines just maybes.
Then there is this.
quote:The directive states that personnel authorized to carry privately owned firearms must "acknowledge they may be personally liable for the injuries, death, and property damage proximately caused by negligence in connection with the possession or use of privately owned firearms that are not within the scope of their federal employment."
quote:Proof of compliance may include a concealed handgun license that is valid under federal, state, local or host-nation law where the DoD property is located
Calif[?]
I find it a mind boggle that AMERICAN troops on AMERICAN bases are disarmed...did not ALL learn firearm use from basic training on ?????and they are not to be trusted in AMERICA...well maybe not by the politicians.....a stupid policy that has needlessly cost AMERICAN lives
Yes sir. And that's how I feel about it too.
Personally, I have no objection to acknowledging those conditions. They exist even off base, whether you acknowledge them or not. It is just acceptance of simple liability for your own actions. As for showing some kind of training or proficiency, I have my CCW card already, so, again, no objections from me. [:D] So, if signing that statement gets me the carry permit on base, guess what, give me the pen. [:D]
See my Problem with this is are they not in the Military, should they not already know if they are Proficient.
Even Oregon with its wacky laws does better than this. When I went for my CCW all I had to do is show my DD214 showing that I was a pistol Expert and they took this without me needing any other classes.
See my Problem with this is are they not in the Military, should they not already know if they are Proficient.
Even Oregon with its wacky laws does better than this. When I went for my CCW all I had to do is show my DD214 showing that I was a pistol Expert and they took this without me needing any other classes.
[/quote]
Exactly,,+++++++++++
In the US and in the ROK I witnessed on duty security forces who were forced to carry weapons with the magazines empty!