Posted on 09/17/2013 3:03:33 PM PDT by Lucky9teen
Edited on 09/17/2013 3:59:49 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Monday’s deadly shooting at the Washington Navy Yard has renewed interest in why most military personnel are forbidden from carrying firearms on military bases. In the aftermath, some have pointed fingers at former President Bill Clinton, but is he really to blame?
Not according to what we found.
The question of why military members aren’t armed on base garnered attention back in November 2009 when Army Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire at Ft. Hood and killed 13 people. He was sentenced to death on August 28. Now, nearly four years later, many are asking the same question.
So what’s the answer? It appears this “gun-free zone” type policy can actually be traced back to Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5210.56, signed into effect in February 1992 by Donald J. Atwood, deputy secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush.
WASHINGTON, DC – SEPTEMBER 17: A police officer stands guard at the front gate of the Washington Naval Yard September 17, 2013 in Washington, DC. Yesterday a defense contractor named Aaron Alexis allegedly killed at least 13 people during a shooting rampage at the Navy Yard before being killed by police. (Credit: Getty Images)
The controversial directive states that “it is DoD Policy” to “limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel.”
“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,” it says.
The policy, however, adds, “DoD personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties shall be armed.” A former member of the Air Force, with experience in base security, thus, told the Washington Post that he would guess there were “no more than a couple of dozen weapons on the Navy Yard.”
It appears DoD Directive 5210.56 was reissued in April 2011 by Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn III.
Some outlets are citing Army Regulation 190-14, a policy implemented in 1993 that changed policy regarding carrying firearms on the Army’s military bases, to cast blame on Clinton.
However, that policy specifically notes part of its purpose is aimed at implementing “applicable portions of Department of Defense Directive 5210.56,” which, as previously stated, was put into effect by Bush Sr.’s deputy secretary of defense:
Army regulation 190-14 actually implements a policy put in under George H.W. Bush, meaning Bill Clinton is not responsible for a lack of armed personnel on military bases. Additionally, the DoD told TheBlaze the Army regulation wouldn’t apply to other branches of the military like the Navy. (Source: Army regulation 190-14)
Further, DoD spokesman Mark Wright told TheBlaze Army Regulation 190-14 would not apply to other bases under different branches of the military, including the site of Monday’s shooting, Washington Navy Yard.
“No, it would not apply,” he said Tuesday afternoon.
Steven Bucci, a military expert for The Heritage Foundation who served 28 years in the Army and retired in 2005 with the rank of colonel, also told TheBlaze Tuesday afternoon that Clinton is not to blame.
“I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you are looking to put blame on someone for disarming the military,” said Bucci, when asked if Clinton was responsible. “I think that’s kind of a bogus story.”
“We have never had our soldiers walking around with weapons all the time, other than in combat zones,” he added, noting only Military Police have had that authority.
TheBlaze reached out to members of both the Senate and House Armed Services Committee to see if the policy will be revisited in light of Monday’s shooting. At the time of publication, no one was available for comment.
So? What do you say we change that? Terrorists have already targeted Americans on American soil, and American military bases. Our service personnel deserve the ability to protect themselves, or at least have that option.
What a joke this must appear to the rest of the world. The mighty American military, at a major headquarters, full of brass, in the nation’s capital, succumbs to a punk with a shotgun and goes into a swoon. Congress runs into the “safe tunnels” like little girls.
Hey, we’re in a world a war. Consider it our luck that this lone lunatic wanted to play “first person shooter” from the balcony over the food-court atrium, instead of heading to the Admirals’ offices. Along with a dozen of his pals at different bases at the same time. Because it could have been done easily. It still can be, as long as our bases are PC “gun free zones.”
I don't know how far back that goes, but I suspect quite a ways. I was in the army at a missile repair base out in the desert, back in the early 1960s. We were never armed, except when we were on "guard duty," stationed around the perimeter with its chain-linked fence and barbed wire. I put "guard duty" in parentheses, because we were issued rifles, but no ammunition.
And, yes, the MPs were armed, presumably so they could bring in any troublemakers when necessary. Their usual duty in my experience was dealing with drunks or speeders.
It's an old custom in most military organizations to keep the weapons in an armory, and only issue them when a battle is anticipated.
What if the guy had to consider that even a small number of his intended victims were armed with no more than a .38 snub revolver?
I went to Ft. Knox for basic in 1960, and no one had ammunition.
I served 8 year in the Md. National Guard and no one had ammunition—at least not officially.
As far as I know it has always been the policy of the military not to issue ammunition unless it’s considered needed.
And in the Navy and Air Force only a very small percentage of the personnel are trained in the use of firearms beyond very basic training, and very few are even issued, or need to be issued any sort of weapon to do their job.
A higher percentage in the Army and Marine Corps would be trained and have weapons issued, but that would still be a minority unless in a combat zone.
The answer is probably increased security, or more military police who are armed and trained in police tactics.
This was always done to prevent accidental discharges. People back then could not conceive of soldiers just going on mass shooting sprees. Times are different now. The military should lift its restrictions on concealed carry and personal guns on base.
I imagine that would arm a small army right there.
Makes me sick ...... Can’t wait till an adult is back in charge of this circus.
Stay safe ..
I know guys who served in the USAF in SAC in the 60’s, and they assure me that their weapons were loaded on base. All of them, all the time.
And anyone who tried to bully or ram their way onto a SAC base was to be shot dead, no questions or hesitation allowed. Anyone who was already on-base, in uniform, who approached the “dead line” surrounding the B-52’s and B-58’s on the flight line who was alone would probably have been shot as well. They told me they took base security very seriously, and signs were posted as to the lethality of their standing orders.
Of course, I still blame draft-dodging, American-hating, serial-lying Clinton. He was aware of the threats and nevertheless deliberately and intentionally chose inaction on the matter.
Why are we dying in “no gun zones”?
B-58s !!!
Dude that was old school.
Actually, there’s nothing like getting “jacked up” by an 18 year old sky cop.
Officers should always have loaded sidearms...for authority.
Sometime following WWI. But IIRC the officers were still allowed to carry side arms.
When I was on guard duty in Germany we carried 90 rounds.
That was in 1960.
Or allow concealed/open carry of privately owned firearms.
“Hey, we’re in a world a war. Consider it our luck that this lone lunatic wanted to play “first person shooter” from the balcony over the food-court atrium, instead of heading to the Admirals’ offices. Along with a dozen of his pals at different bases at the same time. Because it could have been done easily. It still can be, as long as our bases are PC “gun free zones.”
It would have been better for America if this poor soul had shot some staff officers of high rank because they would immediately have changed their idiotic policies regarding firearms on bases.
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.