• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

DC Navy Yard shooter

This guy was obviously nuttier than squirrel turds, and that he had the mental health issues to go along with the ability to purchase said firearm (I bet he checked "no" on the box") blows me away.

To answer the questions above, unfortunately, every military/federal installation is a "no-concealed-carry" zone. Not that you can't have firearms on post, just that they have to all be double locked (through the action/trigger AND in a safe or otherwise secured), which makes having them for any defensive purpose merely theoretical. Why, you ask? I have no flipping idea.

Only ones who have firearms 24/7 on installation is military police/security forces, and as with all police, they are rarely in the right place at the right time, because that's how this works. They are a response, not necessarily a prevention.

You'd think this would change with the recent mass shootings on military installations, but it won't. There is too much risk in having something happen if you issued everybody their firearms on post (losing one, ND, etc.), so the assumed answer is nobody gets one. Dumbdumbdumbdumb.

Really irks the shit out of me as a MP.
 
zagmp03 said:
This guy was obviously nuttier than squirrel turds, and that he had the mental health issues to go along with the ability to purchase said firearm (I bet he checked "no" on the box") blows me away.

To answer the questions above, unfortunately, every military/federal installation is a "no-concealed-carry" zone. Not that you can't have firearms on post, just that they have to all be double locked (through the action/trigger AND in a safe or otherwise secured), which makes having them for any defensive purpose merely theoretical. Why, you ask? I have no flipping idea.

Only ones who have firearms 24/7 on installation is military police/security forces, and as with all police, they are rarely in the right place at the right time, because that's how this works. They are a response, not necessarily a prevention.

You'd think this would change with the recent mass shootings on military installations, but it won't. There is too much risk in having something happen if you issued everybody their firearms on post (losing one, ND, etc.), so the assumed answer is nobody gets one. Dumbdumbdumbdumb.

Really irks the shit out of me as a MP.
Click to expand...

There's a bill in work that would change this. This article in the Military Times talks about it and gives some history on the current rules.


Service members and federal civilians could carry personal firearms on military bases under a bill introduced Thursday by Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, that would reverse a 20-year-old policy on firearms.

“Why are civilians at a restaurant allowed to defend themselves but soldiers trained in firearms aren’t?” Stockman said. “Why can’t we extend common-sense gun laws like open carry to our soldiers?”

The Safe Military Bases Act, HR 3199, is Stockman’s response to the Sept. 16 shooting at the Washington Navy Yard and is similar to legislation introduced after the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas.

Stockman said mass shootings could be stopped if people on base carried their own guns.

“Our disarmed military bases are vulnerable targets for terrorists, as we saw in Fort Hood and the Navy Yard,” he said in a statement. “Despite that, soldiers trained to use guns cannot carry on base. The result is two mass killings where defenseless soldiers had to watch as their friends were murdered.”

“Saving lives by allowing trained soldiers to carry firearms should be an easy fix,” Stockman said. “No reasonable person can oppose that.”

His bill has six original cosponsors. It was referred to the House armed services and judiciary committees for consideration.

Firearms policies had been largely left to base commanders until 1992, when the Defense Department revised its regulations to limit who could carry weapons. At stateside installations, firearms were restricted by a Defense Department directive to law enforcement and security personnel, those guarding prisoners and those taking firearms training.

“The authorization to carry firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried,” the directive said. “Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm shall be made considering this expectation weighed against the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms.”

Current policy, revised in 2011 after the Fort Hood shooting, adds another line to the policy: “Overriding factors in determining whether or not to arm are the mission and threat.”

Although this original directive was issued in February 1992, Stockman and other opponents of the military’s policy on carrying personal firearms refer to this as a “Clinton-era” policy because the Army issued a separate instruction reinforcing the DoD policy in 1993.

http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20 ... side-bases
Click to expand...
 
Gunny, thanks, hadn't seen that. Will be interesting to see where that goes, because the trump card is always "the installation commander", not to mention that several regulations will have to be changed. Be interesting to watch for sure! Thanks again!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 4
 
zagmp03 said:
Gunny, thanks, hadn't seen that. Will be interesting to see where that goes, because the trump card is always "the installation commander", not to mention that several regulations will have to be changed. Be interesting to watch for sure! Thanks again!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 4
Click to expand...

It was just introduced yesterday, so the text of it won't be available till Monday at the earliest, but you can track it here: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php . Click on Bill Number and paste in HR 3199 in the search box.

I retired long before the rules changed, and back then it was no big deal. In fact you could buy guns and ammo on most bases. Pretty good selection usually, and cheaper than out in town. :mrgreen: Don't recall any problems with guns on the bases I was stationed at.
 
Thanks again.

Back to buying guns/ammo on most posts, and the transfer fees to FFLs are always cheap/cheaper than around town. Generally not any problems until you have asshats like Hasan and this other guy.

I'm going to keep a good eye on this bill, although given our current political climate, I doubt they'll do anything productive.
 
zagmp03 said:
Thanks again.

Back to buying guns/ammo on most posts, and the transfer fees to FFLs are always cheap/cheaper than around town. Generally not any problems until you have asshats like Hasan and this other guy.

I'm going to keep a good eye on this bill, although given our current political climate, I doubt they'll do anything productive.
Click to expand...

There's only one thing on the agenda in DC. Until the fight over the budget/obamacare/continuing resolution is resolved nothing else is even going to be talked about. The way it's going that could be a couple months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top