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.
Yes I assume some bases were more apt to give ammunition to troops than others. I can only attest to my own experience.
I was there and I know better.
Any other questions?
I can remember visiting Ellsworth AFB in the late 80’s. We were being given a tour, when we stopped at a chain link fence just outside where they kept and serviced B-52’s. The tour guide invited us to take all the pics we wanted, but to not even think of crossing the fence.
“These planes are guarded by armed personnel around the clock,” he stated. “If you run out to get a closer look, you won’t make it,” he assured us.
I can handle a weapon better then most Air Force Security police.
Saw one have a negligent discharge in a mantrap, concrete and heavy metal on all sides. Fortunately all he had was blanks.
Hey, look! It’s Bush’s fault!
No matter who issued it, it’s bad policy. Yesterday’s horror proves that.
Since 9/11/01, the entire United States is a combat zone.
Once it's discovered it's part of the Bush dynasty...it no longer matters....gak
Yes they do, but they continue to be prohibited from doing so.
American service personnel are free, however, to be flaming queers, and apparently are encouraged to be such.
Bush 1 and every president since is responsible for keeping this policy in effect.
This thread brings back some memories, BTW. “Halt! Who goes there!” [familyop snaps his empty weapon to port arms for a rifle butt to an imaginary head.] LOL!
Not talking about being able to fire a single-shot weapon into a crowd. While this could be done at any time since the introduction of firearms, the perp would then immediately be beaten to death by the survivors of his attack, long before he could possibly reload. Guys used to compensate for this somewhat with multiple pistols, and double barrel pistols, but this strategy too obviously has severe limitations.
I agree that the culture has changed, resulting in more people, for whatever reason, with the desire to commit mass murder.
However, there is a huge difference in killing effect between a weapon that fires two rounds per minute, vs. one that fires 40 or 60 rounds per minute for basically unlimited minutes as long as ammo holds out.
How conservatives can say they need the rapid fire capability of an AR-15 in case they need to defend themselves against multiple attackers, while at the same time denying that this capability is equally useful for those who want to murder a lot of people quickly is beyond me.
I’m not in favor of additional restrictions on guns, but there are costs to everything. And that mass murder becomes easier is one of the costs of a society with relatively easy access to rapid-fire, easily reloaded weapons.
And yet, one would think Pearl Harbor might have changed all that. Obviously the easy way to take over any US military base is to take over the armory.
Yes, it used to make me nervous, out there patrolling the perimeter at night with an unloaded rifle.
One thing, though—they didn’t TELL people that the weapons were not loaded. No one could be sure.
What I thought at the time was a huge mistake was when Bill Clinton loudly and publicly TOLD everyone that they could count on all the weapons at military bases being purely for show. To a criminal, that makes it look as easy as shooting up a school.
I was there in 1960 and you are full of it.
I don’t care when you were there. Not all at Ft. Knox were unarmed. Maybe your were unarmed, but then again, that doesn’t means jack shit does it Mr. Venturer?
Hopefully they arm the soldiers at bases where they store WMD components.
Yeah I am sure the MP’s were armed jack.
I grew up on Army bases, from the early fifties to the mid sixties. I don’t recall ever seeing anyone except MPs openly carrying weapons on a regular basis.
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.