mljdeckard
Member
I have wrestled with this one for a long time, going in and out of the military. I had a conversation with a classmate the other day, who is a Major and very pro 2A. However, when it comes to the soldiers under his command having access to privately owned weapons, he is opposed to it. A little digging revealed he is split on the isse, he supports soldiers living in private housing having access to guns, but not single soldiers living in the barracks.
The reasoning is obvious. The barracks is the army's house, not your house, and the army makes the rules. Young single soldiers, a long weekend, and enough Budweiser inevitably leads to tragedy. So I got him to concede that when you join the military, your rights are defined by your command, if not lost entirely. It should be clearly stated as such.
My question is, will a favorable ruling from Heller change this at all? Will the military really keep the position that even though one has a right to keep and bear arms, this doesn't apply to soldiers or citizens who work or live on a military post?
The reasoning is obvious. The barracks is the army's house, not your house, and the army makes the rules. Young single soldiers, a long weekend, and enough Budweiser inevitably leads to tragedy. So I got him to concede that when you join the military, your rights are defined by your command, if not lost entirely. It should be clearly stated as such.
My question is, will a favorable ruling from Heller change this at all? Will the military really keep the position that even though one has a right to keep and bear arms, this doesn't apply to soldiers or citizens who work or live on a military post?