Posted on 04/17/2014 10:37:41 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
The murders at Fort Hood have resulted in renewed calls to lift Bill Clinton’s ban on personally owned firearms on military bases. This latest attack was the third on a military installation in the past five years, so common sense, no, common DECENCY dictates that a change in policy is necessary. Those who essentially hate the military and think the worst of its members have had their way long enough. Their “because we say so” policy has never made sense. It has to end because it’s killing people and destroying lives.
The arguments against allowing our military personnel the means to defend themselves...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
We are allowed to have personal weapons in housing. We’ve got four right here, in our house, right now.
They have to be registered, unloaded, and locked up. (So they’re no good for defense) But we do have them in housing. (As law abiding citizens, we’ve effectively disarmed ourselves to comply with the rules, but we can clean them whenever we want.)
When we get a suicidal soldier, the first thing that has to be done is to confiscate their weapons. Same for domestic abuse.
But we do have them.
Depends on the state. I know in AK, personal arms are maintained in family housing. They sell them in BX too. Even in the People’s Republic of NY, long guns could be maintained in family housing.
Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ policy from '91-'94 when I was there was that all personal firearms for those living in unaccompanied base-housing (barracks/dorms, whatever) was that all firearms were to be checked in to/out from the armory within 24 hours of intended use period. It could be longer if the armory was closed during the time you needed them. As far as accompanied housing for the married folk, I couldn't say.
Obviously base housing allows, based on testimony above. That was not allowed at the Navy bases I served at.
And the only way to keep a weapon on the ship was in the armory.
Army buddy here says same for his time in the 80's in both Germany and US.
Thanks, I was going to post the same.
It drives me nuts that people insist on claiming this is a recent or liberal policy.
Historically, one of the most important distinctions between a ranker and an officer was that an officer carried his sidearm at all time, the ranker was provided with weapons and ammo only for a specific mission.
It is debatable whether this is still a good policy, but its history is indisputable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.