Ft. Hood Report

[7shooter]

There are a number of news stories today about the pentagon's response to the Ft. Hood mass murder. The KC Star has this quote :

" The summary also said that while the military has policies governing the ownership of personal weapons by troops who live on base, there are no such policies for soldiers such as Hasan who lived off base. Hasan personally purchased the two handguns allegedly used during the shooting spree in the weeks before he allegedly opened fire. "

Read more: Fort Hood shooting probe slams Pentagon policies - KansasCity.com

I suspect the outcome may be to further restrict access to defensive firearms for military personel. Our military both here and in war zones are endangered by policies that already prevent them from using the skills, training, and weapons that America provides them . I read an email recently from a soldier in one of our war zones who described how his men had to have their military small arms locked up on base. This made them unnecesarily vulnerable when a terrorist incident occured. We need to allow our military to have the same ability to defend themselves on base that ordinary citizens have in our communities.

 

[safearm]

From Air Force Times:

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.

 

[Munsterf18]

Does this PO anyone else like it does me?

Just what the branches need, Washington telling them what policies to adopt locally.

It's not a problem with personal gun ownership, storage, guns, access or anything else. It was a problem with the person.

He was not a "disgruntled army Dr.", he was a religious zealot with a plan to harm the US. And they had already identified it. Absent a gun it would have been a bomb or worse.

Meanwhile, everyone else will now become more vulnerable and more restricted due to their changes. The terrorists won't mind it a bit, they don't care about the rules.

Munster

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

Interesting how military personnel are expected to bear arms in defense of the nation but are expected to forfeit their personal RKBA.
Again, what do you expect? That our PC president and PC SecDef will admit they had a bad officer who was protected by his ethnicity and religion.
I will also say again that the Army is really a very pantywaist organization, this will have the effect of keeping good people from enlisting and inducing already serving personnel to leave.

 

[GatorFarmer]

I'm not sure why firearms would be locked up for a deployed unit. Most photos show people in line for food, wandering about, etc, with their rifles, though -variously - you're not supposed to have a round in the chamber or a mag in place. Back in the states, keeping the arms locked up in the armory, instead of just laying around, has pretty much always been the policy. Keeps guns from "walking off" and reduces the number of accidental deaths.

Many - most? - posts have required guns on base to be registered since the suicide rate started to spike amongst those returning from the war. There were also a few troubling family annihiliation homicides. Here at Parris Island they supposedly started cracking down on registration regulations after a Marine shot himself and the gun wasn't registered. What difference that would have made, I'm not sure.

As is, you have to register your deadly weapons - not just guns - with the PMO office. I caused the one lady to have a fit owing to the number that I needed to register upon arrival. The movers finally delivered the rest of my long guns, so I suppose that I'll need to go see them again.

If you're caught on base and your weapon isn't registered, you get in varying degrees of trouble. The most severe trouble of course is if you're carrying a loaded weapon on your person or readily accessible. Makes things rather a pain for one wishing to carry a gun off base.

Anyway, they sell guns at the Exchange here and supposedly either lead, or are second, in terms of sales of firearms. I forget which. Quantico meanwhile was a leader in package liquor sales.

If you live in the barracks you have to store your guns in the armory. In family housing you're just supposed to keep them locked up and store ammo and guns in seperate rooms. The legality of that is somewhat dubious as applied to non military dependents owing to Heller I'd imagine. I think officers can store them in their quarters, married or not.

As a practical matter, I'm not sure what they could do about people living off base since it would difficult to seperate my guns from my wife's in the household. Since I'm not in the military, they have only such much authority over me living on base and essentially none off base since the military can't order civilians to do things in most cases in the United States.

 

[m657]

Does anyone see anything WRONG with this quote:

"A disgruntled Army doctor"

 

[retiredsquid]

As far as registration of privately owned firearms on base are concerned. Never during my 24 year career was I anywhere that did not require them to be registered with base police. That goes back almost 40 years ago.

The folks that register their firearms are not the problem. These folks are honest law abiding citizens. Folks with criminal intent in mind are not going to pay attention to any law.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

In "my" day (1967-1971) you were "supposed" to regsiter privately owned firearms with the MPs, I never did, don't know of anyone else who did. If you lived in the barracks you pretty much had to keep them in the arms room-or supply room in say a training unit with no weapons in its TO&E, if you lived in the BEQ or BOQ or family housing you kept them there.
Also in my day it seems "they" weren't so paranoid about weapons. The attitude was "You signed for it-you're responsible for it".

 

[Frailer]

As far as registration of privately owned firearms on base are concerned. Never during my 24 year career was I anywhere that did not require them to be registered with base police. That goes back almost 40 years ago.

The folks that register their firearms are not the problem. These folks are honest law abiding citizens. Folks with criminal intent in mind are not going to pay attention to any law.

Same here, and I've been in since '85.

I've stayed in this long because I love Soldiers--but they're far from perfect. Soldiers living in the barracks keep their privately owned weapons in arms rooms for very good reasons.

 

[rayb]

I remember when the rifle racks went from the room at the end of each flor of the barracks down to the company headquarters orderly room, in early 1967. Before this change, privately owned weapons were also stored locked up in the same racks. The ranking NCO living in the barracks had the keys.

So now instead of 10 or 20 weapons on each floor of the barracks, you had 160 weapons packed into a single room in the HQ building, everyone having to go through that single point to be issued their weapon.

To get our issue weapon we went from a 5 minute respose ( get the key to the door, unlock it, then unlock the racks, put your weapons card in the empty rack slot, issue the weapon) to a 20 minute drill along with more paper, cards, signatures, etc., everyone in the company going through a single issue point.

Inspections of security then became a drill to make sure you had lots of paperwork to show issue and return of the weapons.

All this was , I suppose, in response to the anti-war activities of various folks who are now part of the ruling establishment.

Point is , the higher ups either didn't really trust their soldiers then, or were very afraid of something else. IN my opinion, the situation has continued to deterioriate.

rayb

 

[oldman45]

I live a few miles from Barksdale AFB. A couple times each year I will have to go interview someone on the base. My vehicle is searched very well before I can enter the base. NO guns are allowed to be on me, in my vehicle or in the trunk of the vehicle. This is so even if I am on official legal business on base. The AP will secure my weapon at the place of entry and then give it back to me as I leave. Should I be concerned about potential trouble while there, I am assigned at least one AP to travel with me.

The trouble I see in the above article is that they want to make it difficult for military people to own firearms, just as some cities will not allow police officers to carry firearms off duty or at their homes. The government wants to control the gun and not the criminal.

A flip side to this is that the shooter at Ft Hood was not a criminal before he began shooting people. Therefore the only way the military could have prevented his buying guns is to create a law preventing him from doing so LEGALLY.

This administration is going to ruin this country very soon.

 

[BOB THE PALINDROME]

Both Ft.Hood & Ft.Lewis required registration of firearms before allowing them to be brought on post. At Ft.Lewis soldiers living in barracks were required to store them in unit arms room. Officers were allowed to keep their weapons in BOQ. At Ft.Lewis this was true as far back as 1979 to my knowledge and most likely longer.

Military personnel do not fall under the same rules as civilians. One gives up a number of "rights" to defend the country. At one time the commander at Ft.Wainwright in Alaska said that soldiers could not "carry" of post/off duty and that was that.

 

[kraigwy]

I policed Anchorage, we had joint juristriction on Ft Rich and EAFB, never had a problem carrying on or off duty. (I was also in the NG at the time). Maybe things are differant now days, (I retired in 94 from LE and 92 from the guard). But in them days I wouldnt give up my service revolver for anything. The only exception was bookings in jail. Never had a court tell me to lock up the gun, Even federal.

If I needed to talk to someone, and I couldnt take my gun on base, then who ever needed to talk to me would have to step out the gate, I never was fond of giving up my gun.

I remember getting a letter from Ft. Knox when my kid graduated basic regarding attending the graduation. It stated no firearms could be carried by us friends and relatives, EXCLUDING, LE, the way the letter was written I took it to mean anyone who carries under HR 218. It didnt matter since I couldnt attend.

BUT, back on topic:

I think its a disgrace, we can give our kids a multi million dollar weapons system and send them to war, but we dont trust them at home. Heck, if they havent reached 21 they cant even buy a pistol when the come home from war.

Its a pure case of DOGS AND SOLDIERS KEEP OFF THE GRASS

We allow the government to totally dishonor our Vets and Soldiers.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

My last year on active duty, 1970-1971 in Germany, we didn't carry our weapons on guard duty. Firearms went out of fashion in the Army in the 1970s and 1980s, the attitude was that weapons security was more important than proper training. The loss of a small arm was a greater offense than losing a multimillion dollar aircraft and involved more paperwork and more people getting their butts reamed out. Troops saw their small arms as a nuisance and a PITB and often handled them as they were poisonous stakes or radioactive and decided they less they saw of them the better.
Also with the feminzation of the military in the 1990s firearms were seen as a sign of an over aggressive macho mentality. I have been told that dependent wives were often given veto power over their spouses keeping firearms at home, people who tried to revive rifle and pistol teams were slapped down by their superiors.

 

[Faulkner]

"Disgruntled army doctor"??

Have they not yet figured out that muslims are our enemy. They hate us.

 

[Blotres]

Just what the branches need, Washington telling them what policies to adopt locally.

You do know that the military take their orders from the civilian government, don't you?

He was not a "disgruntled army Dr.", he was a religious zealot with a plan to harm the US. And they had already identified it.

Funny, "they" identified him as a disgruntled Army Dr. His social interactions with his fellow officers were the cause of his disgruntlement - being unhinged and socially inept, he had a persecution complex that blew up into a violent climax. There is no shortage of credible analysis of this psycho on the net. What he isn't is a religious zealot.

The terrorists won't mind it a bit, they don't care about the rules.

Munster

Great, now you just connected him with Al Qaida and every other terrorist organization. You must also believe that Saddam Hussein worked with Al Qaida AND had WMDs, right?

 

[Blotres]

Interesting how military personnel are expected to bear arms in defense of the nation but are expected to forfeit their personal RKBA.

Interesting to note that the 5 branches are specifically prohibited from exercising warfare inside the US. The military bearing arms and warfighting is only sanctioned outside the US. Inside the US, we have the Guards.

 

[Blotres]

Does anyone see anything WRONG with this quote:

"A disgruntled Army doctor"

No, nothing wrong with it... take off your color glasses

 

[Blotres]

I think its a disgrace, we can give our kids a multi million dollar weapons system and send them to war, but we dont trust them at home. Heck, if they havent reached 21 they cant even buy a pistol when the come home from war.

Its a pure case of DOGS AND SOLDIERS KEEP OFF THE GRASS

We allow the government to totally dishonor our Vets and Soldiers.

Surprised that you don't know that it is ILLEGAL for the military (save the NG) to exercise warfare in home soil.

 

[GatorFarmer]

My last year on active duty, 1970-1971 in Germany, we didn't carry our weapons on guard duty. Firearms went out of fashion in the Army in the 1970s and 1980s, ....
Also with the feminzation of the military in the 1990s firearms were seen as a sign of an over aggressive macho mentality. I have been told that dependent wives were often given veto power over their spouses keeping firearms at home, people who tried to revive rifle and pistol teams were slapped down by their superiors.

I'm a military dependent, currently living on base. Guards at all the bases that I've been on were armed. Either MP/SPs or Federal Police. M9s at a min, and often M4s, M16A4s and those neat new Benellis that the Marines had. For a while, the guards at Quantico were even wearing their armor. Even on family day here when the guards are wearing dress uniforms, they still have their M9s.

Army training these days has changed to where people carry their M4s around with them and wear their armor during training. The Marines are still sleeping with their rifles, though I don't know if they have a girl's name in training.

There were rifle and pistol clubs at all the Marine bases that I've been on or that my wife served on. They sell guns and tactical gear at the Exchange. Mostly ARs and black guns, with FN 5,7 pistols being increasingly popular.

No one mentioned that I, as a spouse, had any veto power about a gun in the house.

No one searches me going on and off base either. Occaisionally they do random searches, but except if one is going near the DEA/FBI and Presidential Air Wing side at Quantico, proper ID results in a wave through.

Women both serving and dependents are frequently seen as customers at the gun counter here. Most of the staff working it are women. Jane Wayne days are held to let the spouses, presumed to be female in most cases, go put on armor and shoot M16s.

I haven't seen things appear all the feminized, and as one of the rare non prior service male spouses of a female service member, I think that I'd probably notice.