Carrying on a Military Base

Status
Not open for further replies.
FIVETWOSEVEN

FIVETWOSEVEN

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2009
Messages
5,146
Pease Air force base has a sign up saying that private weapons are not allowed. What legalities are behind this posting? The head of Security Police said that it applies to everyone except for sworn Police officers (since he is a part time Officer and is mandated to carry). They provide no lock up box at the guard house which would mean that if we were going there, we had to leave our weapons home thus having to gun unarmed that day when running errands.
 
Pease AFB is Federal property, and rules & regs are the sole discretion of the Base Commander. You have heard what the rules are, from a putative authority.

You're playing on their turf; you ignore the rules at your peril.
 
Not sure about AF, but at Ft. Lewis the Provost Marshall is in charge of that stuff. You have one of those? They have to provide on-post storage and registration of personal owned firearms. They are supposed to lock them up in a base storage facility and you have to sign it out and ask for permission to use it way in advance, on and on... Such a hassle a lot of folks that live on base don't do it. If you live on base, check with the Provost Marshall about storing, or ask your 1sgt, he should know. At Ft. Lewis, which is an infantry base where just about every building has an arms room, we stored our personal weapons in our own arms room and had it set up where we just signed a hand receipt on Friday afternoon.

Once the weapon has been registered with the Provost Marshall, and you sign it into the correct arms room and then sign it out properly, you can carry it anywhere you like basically (well, depending on your particular base rules) but it has to be unloaded and such. Bottom line is you CAN'T carry on a base. You can sign out personal weapons to use at the range on weekends or to take off base.

I know all this applied at Ft. Lewis, I used to bring my weapons on base everyday and never had a problem. Just make sure you know the post rules. There should be a copy in your arms room, go ask the arms room guy. He'll know more than some robot gate cop anyway, and aren't those civilians now? What do they know.

Contact arms room guy, 1sgt., and/or provost marshall office. Forget the police, the MP's, whatever, they don't do this the marshall does (in the army). But the army is very closely related to AF, so I'd be surprised if you couldn't keep 'em or carry 'em on post.

Finally, I think there is a federal law that requires military bases with firing ranges to make at least one of those ranges accessible to the public. In that light, you pretty much HAVE to have registration and storage.

Yeah, you need to contact some other folks. I'd be real surprised if that base was a "no firearms at all" installation. It is active duty, right? Whatever, find out what the equivalent of Provost Marshall is in the AF and contact that office, and go to your arms room and talk to them, they SHOULD have a list of all the base and maybe local and federal laws too. Ours had them laminated just outside the door.
 
Concealed weapons on a military base are a no go for all except law enforcement. Troops and others desiring to hunt or shoot on a US Army base must register those guns at the firearms and vehicle registration branch. Registration is a Pentagon database. i'm an Army retiree: Many of my guns are registered because i often hunt and shoot on Ft. Sill.

Troops living in an Army barracks must check their privately owned weapons into the unit arms room. Married troops living on an Army base are allowed to keep their guns in family quarters.

Except for the database thing, it's been that way since before WWII.
 
On my base they had an armory for this. It was so time consuming that nobody carried on or off base. i was military police and i never apprehended anybody for this. i just let them know to register their new firearms at the armory.
 
I worked the gate at the 103rd Airlift Wing, Bradley Air National Guard base, for four years. I can tell you right now that unless you're with Security Forces or law enforcement, you are NOT going to get permission to carry a firearm, loaded or unloaded, locked or unlocked. You can contact the Chief of Pease's Security Forces Squadron if you want, but I can predict the outcome. Keep in mind that even appealing to the Chief he or she is still only an E9 and beholden to the base commander, the Adjutant General, and (as noted) the Pentagon.

SRA Kantrowitz, 103rd LRS Connecticut Air National Guard, formerly of C Co. 3/172 INF (MTN) New Hampshire Army National Guard
 
I NEVER carry on-base. I haven't asked about checking a firearm, but after what happened last week in New York I think I'll just leave 'em at home.
 
You pretty much cannot carry on a military base. As Fort Hood shows, this creates a high profile victims zone. This is one of the factors that kept me from re-enlisting. Its OK to teach Jihad on a base, but illegal to defend yourself from it.
 
Slightly off topic, but....I predict this will change soon. Bases are a target for domestic terrorists. Therefore, our troops will soon be able to defend themselves during these attacks.

I don't recall where exactly it is in the Constitution, per troops being activated on U.S. soil, but is that the linchpin in these arguments to leave them defenseless against said attacks?

The Ft. Hood scenario SHOULD have been the turning point with this policy.
 
What legalities are behind this posting?
Click to expand...
The military's in general, and the base commander's in particular. Their word is the law. There are no constitutional grounds to question its legality, if that is what you were asking.
 
Last edited:
Good god man, the military is totally freaked out about guns on bases after the Fort Hood massacre and other terriorist incidents have them on pins and needles. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/06/military-growing-terrorist-target-lawmakers-warn/

You would think the military is pro gun, but it never has been. In the past too many soldiers have shot themselves and others in negligent discharges and that has engendered an anti gun attitude in the military. When you are on a military facility the Post Commander is totally responsible for everything on the base, and unlike civilian authority, he will be held accountable if something goes wrong. The Post Commander is not going to risk his career over your insecurities. You have to understand the Constitution does not apply on a military base.

You risk time in a Federal Prison by carrying guns onto a military base.
 
If I was a soldier at Ft. Hood who had a sidearm in my truck/locker/etc., and I had prevented their last active shooter from killing as many people as he did, do you really believe THAT policy would matter? No.

These policies are archaic and NEED to be changed, training needs to be stepped up. Period. We know about these domestic terrorist attacks therefore, we can prevent them. Worrying more about soldiers killing themselves or each other is moronic.
 
The military's in general, and the base commander's in particular. Their word is the law. There are no constitutional grounds to question its legality, if that is what you were asking.
Click to expand...
Correct. Back when I was a contractor working on a military facility a few years ago there was a decision made to have a managed deer hunt on the property. People who wanted to participate had to jump through a lot of hoops, which included listing the make/model/serial # of the gun you planned to use with the MP's, letting them inspect the gun before and after to make sure it was unloaded, accounting for your rounds, and a shooting test.

Yes I played along. They had some massive deer in there. :D
 
Steve in PA-yes I have.

It is moronic to have a terrorist target, such as our U.S. mil. bases, only having MPs allowed sidearms. Same laws SHOULD apply to our U.S. stationed personnel wherever they travel.

Here is a terrorist target, such as the Ft. Hood scenario, and Noone except for a couple of people are allowed to have firearms. (What's wrong with this picture?) What's wrong with that picture is the terrorists have an easy target. Okay, moronic was a legitimate assessment-let's say it's a Catch 22;damnned if you do/dead if you do NOT.

Change the policy. How many more "Ft. Hoods" have to occur before it changes?
 
As recent as 3 years ago, I had a gun in my truck nearly every day at Beale AFB, CA. Had a CCW that I carried between my residence and my work center, unloading it before approaching the gate.

They also had a Rod and Gun Club where I would frequently shoot skeet on my lunch hour. It was never an issue.

They also had a 100 yard rifle range. There wasn't a day in 10 years that I was stationed there that I didn't have at least a pistol and more often than not, rifles and shotgun in the bed of my truck.

I was PCSing to Texas when Ft. Hood occurred, and now the bases are super paranoid about it. I wouldn't try to take a weapon on any base now. Signs appeared on the gate after Ft. Hood saying privately owned weapons were forbidden from the installation. I have a co-worker that frequently shoots after work, and he goes out of his way to drop them at my place at o'dark thirty so he can avoid taking them on base.
 
I have often advocated for more armed personnel on bases, with a policy to issue M9s and two magazines to those willing to participate. My suggestion would be to have the pistol carried empty, with the mags on the belt. That way you eliminate any shenanigans with the clearing barrel, and anyone can immediately identify that the weapon is safe visually by the empty mag well.

Yes, there could be a round in the chamber, but if no mag is inserted from the beginning of the duty day and the weapon is left in the holster, then only a deliberate act would chamber a round. And that's the whole point, no mag would be loaded unless an active shooter alert was issued.

Obviously it would be slow to load a magazine in the face of an imminent threat, but we're talking baby steps here. Convincing the brass that this policy is safe is the most important thing. While a quick response to a shooter would be more difficult, the potential is there to arm many more soldiers and airmen than just the MPs/SFs. Imagine one or two armed personnel in every building on a base rather than just the cops and gate guards.

But hell, I'm just an E4.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top