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.
Here`s how they do it in Pakistan.
They got nuts n` terrorists there, we got `em here-
WHAT`S THE DIFFERENCE??!!
The military largely has its own rules to be followed on military bases. I doubt they would honor carry permits issued by civilian authorities and doubt they should.
Any increased security and carry permits on base should stay under the jurisdiction of the military.
That was SAC.
Old SAC.
Real SAC.
Curt LeMay SAC.
Times have changed.
When I was in OCS, we trained on 45s....
Why? Just for fun? Cripes, train ‘em, let ‘em use ‘em.....
Oh the Bush dynasty??
Could you post this in the "Day in the Life" thread?
The fans, or fanatics, will really appreciate it...
Be sure to describe the clothing he and Ms. Bush were wearing at the time, and post some attractive pics along with it.
Thanks!!!
Bingo. Traditionally, soldiers were "the scum of the earth, enlisted for drink." And sailors were no better.
Officers were always a great deal more concerned about their own soldiers or seamen staging a mutiny than they were about somebody shooting up the base or ship. So access to weapons and ammunition was always tightly controlled. This is the actual origin of Marines, soldiers kept on board and at odds with the sailors. The Marines were armed to keep the sailors under control.
Of course, in the old days muzzle loading firearms made it very difficult for one person or a small group to shoot a bunch of people.
BS
This is only meaningful it this policy was a significant change from the previous policy, which is unlikely. More likely just a restatement.
Until somebody posts something showing that previous policy allowed or required soldiers to be armed on base.
Somebody should ask what happened to all the MPs that were relied upon after these orders to disarm the soldiers were issued. They’re not there because they’re in Afghanistan, teaching Afghans how to shoot our MPs in the back.
I went through USN gunnery and missle school at Great Lakes from 86-88. Also located on base was Nuclear Propulsion school...and Fire controlman school for the Aegis. All had full scale working models of the equipment being learned about.
I walked many a “Balls to Four”perimeter watch armed with a loaded 1911(Many infantry had already changed to the Beretta). One had to qualify for this at the range and had to take classes on use of deadly force. But, there was no mistake if I had encountered a strange person who did not heed my order to halt...I would of shot them dead.
Yes and those armed airmen on SAC bases were authorized security police, both law enforcement, guards and SAT teams. They were protecting the nukes. Whenever I was on duty as a missile officer I was armed. Whenever I flew on the SAC Looking Glass, I was armed. Whenever I transported nuclear release codes or two person control materials I was armed. This is not the same as letting everyone walk about with issued armed weapons.
As an enlisted Marine before that we never had loaded field weapons day to day. Those were maintained in the armory and ammunition was issued at the ranges or as required. Troops stopped carrying their issued weapons with them, even when moving to a new base, sometime back in the early-mid 50s and even then and during WWII they were not issued ammunition unless they were on guard duty or in a combat zone. Living in the barracks, there is not a good way to control stupid individuals and/or drunken individuals. There were incidents where trained personnel accidently or on purpose shot themselves or each other in garrison. We had two guys whom I knew who were MPs, bored in the middle of the night at one of the gates and they decided to play quick draw with their M1911s. On about the 5th quick draw one guy was puzzled that it sounded like a gunshot while his partner was standing there holding his side shouting “You shot me you stupid M*$ke&t%@+er”. We disarmed another drunk Marine who brought a weapon into the club to take care of the guy who supposedly stole his girlfriend. That is why everyone on base is not issued a weapon and ammunition for daily carry/use.
The French NCOs and officers couldn't believe that the pistols that ours carried were unloaded, and said that it was no wonder we had problems with control like we did during the race troubles of the late 1960s and the 1970s.
Yep, you too compadre.
I’m sure that personnel actually standing perimeter watches at any sensitive installation and military police are armed and trained in the use of arms.
But some here are talking about people carrying weapons on base who have civilian issued carry permits, and some even are saying all personnel should carry their weapons on base.
I was in the USNR and served at Little Creek and was often at the main base in Norfolk and never saw anyone armed but military police, and maybe gate guards. I ‘stood’ watches in a building onshore and I don’t think my command even had any weapons. I sure never saw nor heard about any.
The idea that there has been a time in recent memory where large numbers of military personnel walked around on base carrying a weapon and live ammo is nonsense. I agree there should be increased security, but it should come from trained personnel and any carry permits should be issued by the military, and civilian carry permits should not be honored on base.
Not true in the least. Are you not familiar with the venerable blunderbuss? Or portable pintle-mounted “swivel guns” that fired a pound of lead balls like a reloadable Claymore?
And that was in an era when relative to the available medical care, a wound—any wound—was far more deadly. Any lunatic could have mowed down the church picnic in 1680 with a blunderbuss. They didn’t. What changed was not firearms, but culture.
My son was in the Navy, and he said they had Marines on board ships with guns cause no one trusted a sailor with one
Really?? You were there and know better.
The only time we got ammunition was at the firing range, The weapons were locked in storage each night and gotten out in the morning, No one had ammunition for them.
Bush's homeland security boss Chertoff, was found to have people who entered the country illegally, wandering around the inside of his private residence....During war time.
On guard duty at the Missile base we had 14 rounds and an M-1 Carbine. We passed the ammunition to the guy that relieved us.
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.