For those who don't know, when we Enlist or receive a Commission in the US Armed Forces we get a whole new "Bill of Rights", so to speak. The gist of it is that we still pretty much enjoy the same Rights and Freedoms as everyone else, just that we're subject to more stringent, somewhat confining Rights than your average US Citizen enjoys. More than anything, tho, it means that we're subject to different "laws" in a lot of instances and that the punishments can sometimes be more severe than what the equivalent might be to a civilian. A lot of those regulations (i.e. "laws") aren't designed to purposely restrain our Rights, so much as to allow for good order and discipline to be more easily understood, adhered to and enforced.
That being said, everyone's entitled to their opinion on the issue. Well, unless the laws in that country forbid it. I don't have to agree with the opinions of others, just should stop and think to respect that other folks
have an opinion that might well be different. No matter how silly I might find it, I try to be respectful and like to think that I usually succeed at such an endeavour. :biggrin:
This is my best guess: Link Removed
Ah, thanks! That actually links to another article by the Associated Press, hosted by Google.com:
Link Removed
By ANNE GEARAN (AP) – Apr 15, 2010
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon will adopt a broad policy governing how privately owned guns can be carried or stored at military installations following the shooting deaths of 13 people last year at Fort Hood, Texas.
A disgruntled Army doctor is charged in the deaths.
Maj. Nidal Hasan had little or no access to military firearms in his job as a psychologist, but was able to buy two handguns and bring them onto the base.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered this week that a new comprehensive policy be developed to cover all branches of the military and its bases and offices. The standardized policy would replace or buttress a patchwork of regulations adopted by each service or individual military installation.
The weapons policy is among recommendations for security and administrative upgrades released by the Pentagon on Thursday. Gates ordered that an interim weapons policy be in force by June, and a permanent one is due early next year.
The new policy is expected to mirror restrictions already in place at some military installations that, for example, require guns brought onto a base to be registered with military police.
Gates also ordered changes in the way tips and information in criminal investigations are shared, and directed an internal review of personnel policies on health care records. An outside panel said those policies can prevent higher-ups from knowing about behavior or other problems that might be red flags.
Also Thursday, Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins R-Maine, said they will send subpoenas to the Pentagon and Justice Department if the administration doesn't provide more information on the Fort Hood case by Monday.
Lieberman and Collins — the two top senators on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee — launched their investigation into the Fort Hood shootings five months ago. They claim the administration is stonewalling their requests for access to FBI agents, documents or Hasan's personnel file from the Defense Department.
"Disclosure of some of the material you have requested could compromise the pending prosecution," administration lawyers wrote to the two senators this week.
The administration said it does not want to generate pretrial publicity that could taint a jury pool or make witnesses reluctant to cooperate, and wants to avoid a barrage of defense lawyer requests that could force the government to reveal information it wants to save for a criminal trial.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Defense Department is moving quickly to identify and address problems highlighted by the Hasan case, and is balancing its obligations to protect soldiers, prosecute crimes and work with congressional overseers.
"We are doing that in an expeditious, fair, reasonable and thorough manner," Whitman said.
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
There are a few related links at the bottom of the page, as well. Mostly, this just sounds like DoD will set up a standardized across all Services for dealing w/personally owned weapons. Every USAF CONUS installation that I've been on thus far has been standard in that you can't just carry your firearm on-base w/o registering it, particularly if you're a civilian - family member, retired, DoD Civilian or guest of any of the above - and that the only way you
don't have to keep your firearm in the armory is if you live in base housing.
When I was in the Marines, they made me check in my personal guns into the armory while I was on base. It did not bother me too much, but when I got them out during my final check out they were scratched up and looked like they had been fired. Was not very happy over that.:angry:
When I was in, I could understand some points behind the reasoning of not allowing servicemen to keep firearms in their barracks rooms. I never understood any reason for keeping them out of base housing. I also saw cases where armorers handled Privately Owned firearms as if they were armory property that they weren't accountable for.
Per USAF CONUS Reg's, you can have a POF in your on-base housing, provided it's not the dormitories. I take it that at USMC bases you weren't authorized personal firearms in base housing? As I've mentioned before, I have no clue how the other Services have mandated this in the past, but it seems that it should be changing shortly to be uniform across all branches of the US Armed Forces. I dn't think it's a bad thing for that to be a uniform set of DoD Policies/Regulatoins, but I just hope it doesn't end up being more restrictive because of that US Army Major at Ft. Hood.
Should it turn out that way, I'll definitely be exercising my Rights and contacting my US Representative and Senator on the issue. I feel it should serve as an example as to WHY more US Armed Forces Personnel should be allowed to have personally owned firearms in their vehicles as they come on-base/post. Just require them to be left in their vehicle unless emergency circumstances require otherwise - and clearly define such circumstances.
I mean, do you know how much of a pain it is when you want to go shoot after work, have to drive 30 minutes to your house, just to double-back half that distance to go to a shooting range?!? Yeah, I know I
chose to live where I do, but it's just so danged inconvenient and kinda silly, given that the vast majority of folks who legally own firearms never - knowingly - do anything illegal w/them. Just require us to get a special DoD permit, y'know?
OK, I'll quit cryin' now. :cray:
:sarcastic:
Regardless, I've heard very similar horror stories about privately owned weapons kept in USAF Security Forces armories. Usually the same thing that handgonnetoter mentions - dinged up, dirty from having been fired by not cleaned, etc... One fella told me that his shotgun apparently had the brand-spankin'-new pistol grip he'd put on it prior to putting it in the armory replaced by an older and different grip. He filed a complaint, but I don't recall what he told me the status that ever came about. He was pretty hot about it, tho - understandbly so.
.
