Consequences Of Government Gun Free

[CB900F]

Fella's;

As all of us should know, a legal concealed firearm owner cannot take his firearm into or onto U.S. Government property, with very few exceptions. This is frequently state law also, usually worded as; buildings in which government business is conducted, or something similar.

These provisions in effect disarm the average citizen traveling to & from military installations, law enforcement agencies, and government offices. At some point, it's inevitable I should think that a legal carry citizen is going to either lose their life, or be severely injured, in such travel because they are not able to carry & perform requested duties or actions in a government installation.

At that point, I would hope that the citizen's survivors would sue the government for anything they can get, and the more the better. Since it's overtly evident that an environmentalist group can sue the government over dead timber, owl poop, and other fringe concerns I should think a surviving family could sue over loss of life.

So, if instead, a military base offered to hold your firearm, or other restricted object, in secure storage, would you take advantage of the service while temporarily on base? I'd think the provision would have to be in force that the service is storage only & no inspection or handling by the holder is allowed. Serial number taken? Yes/no? Photograph? What say you?

I lived in a city that had a major military base adjacent to it. During the course of my employment, I was called out to that base many times & always resented the fact that I was forced to travel to & from the installation without my firearm.

900F

 

[Tirod]

I have that problem at my job, as it's policy and enforced at over 4,400 stores nationwide. Of course, where a shooting has occurred and employees were injured or killed, the company quietly allows carry - even open - according to the state laws.

Corporations always look to whatever is the cheapest solution when considering liability.

Government does not, and the issue is even getting a suit into court to pursue. The government is set up to review what cases it allows the citizen to take to court, not which case is coming up out of all of them. It does that because of a larger responsibility to all the taxpayers, because a few have tried to take advantage of the system and game it.

Basically it leaves us with assessing the risk as best we can and taking our chances. Which isn't anything new with the human condition, just something we now have to deal with because others think they can guarantee more safety by having less guns. And that creates victim zones, which most shooters agree are the problem, not the solution.

 

[OldMac]

I would use one at the post office if it was a self serve box. Place weapon in a locker, take the key with you. Reverse when you leave. Quick, efficient, no paperwork or information gathering.

 

[Shovelhead]

I've watched what my assigned Base considers LEOs performing Force on Force drills.
Muzzle Sweeping each other, finger on trigger, heck, one officer was twirling his blue rubber M-9.
I would never place my firearm in their care.

 

[herkyguy]

Multiple bases allow firearms on base, with the caveat that it is unloaded. Seems simple enough to me. I used to hunt on a base in Florida without any hassle.

Drive without one in the pipe. Drop the mag before you go on base. Or go with a revolver and drop the rounds into your palm before you get to the gate.

Don't overthink it. If there's a drop box, someone will leave theirs overnight or try to pick up the wrong one, or have an ND right at the gate.

It's a liability thing for any base CO. Not saying I agree with it, because I don't, but CO's spend the majority of their time dealing with the few true idiots under their command, hence they tend to lean towards the most conservative approach.

This issue had started to come up in command climate surveys (for the older vets, these surveys are anonymous chances for the entire unit to complain about things ranging from deployment cycles to the color of hallway carpets, and then the command spends a week reading every comment about the lack of options in the vending machines). Still, I doubt too many commands will stick their neck out and allow base carry.

We've got a long way to go before the mindset changes. You'll first see all the soft measures put in place - no driving in uniform, vary your routes, no military stickers, pretty embarrassing stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[reidry]

I am not military or a LEO. I do come from a military family. I am a USPSA action pistol and three gun shooter. I have had my CWP for over 20 years.

It's a liability thing for any base CO. Not saying I agree with it, because I don't, but CO's spend the majority of their time dealing with the few true idiots under their command, hence they tend to lean towards the most conservative approach.

Whether a base CO, the federal government, your state government or your local sheriff, it really bothers me when someone says I am going to infringe on your rights because of liability, liability associated with the least common denominator.

Our society is plagued by those hoping to have an "accident" so the reigning liability policy can deliver their golden parachute! This is the root of the, "you can't do that, our liability insurance doesn't cover it." I can't imagine the forefathers paying a claim because some idiot tripped in their residence. If you are a klutz, learn first aid or buy a helmet and pads.

I fully appreciate the Second Amendment and support the position that firearms ownership and carry are fundamental, inalienable rights. However, each and ever gun owners has the responsibility to exercise their right in a safe manner. We gun owners need to be more diligent about training and discipline. On more than one occasion at a practice range I have had to intervene in a fellow shooters activities due to unsafe practices, especially poor muzzle discipline. It gets my attention right now when someone points a pistol down the line to reload!

I am sure some gun control leftist will say, "well then, make it a requirement". Not so fast Fido, mandatory comes with fees and regulation. That's not in the cards. A 70 year old shut-in grandmother needs a different level of profiency than a 20 something delivery guy that works in a shady part of town. I am however advocating that gun owners take advantage of training where applicable. Often your fellow gun owners are a great resource. In addition to training, everyone must practice.

We've got a long way to go before the mindset changes. You'll first see all the soft measures put in place - no driving in uniform, vary your routes, no military stickers, pretty embarrassing stuff.

I think you are being overly optimistic. In much of the country we are still loosing ground and there is a fight coming at the federal level. The leftist Dems are ignoring all facts and are going to continue to pound the gun control drum with the mainstream media marching right along. These fools think guns are scary and they can't admit that laws have almost nothing to do with crime. In their infantile minds they equate the concept of banning with uninventing - so misguided, criminals will always have weapons.

Ryan

 

[CapnMac]

Fitting a proper sally-port into an=ll the needed facilities would cost a pretty penny.