Why are soldiers not allowed to carry on base, etc.?

[myrockfight]

I always wondered why soldiers are not allowed to carry their weapons or only are allotted ammunition at specific times.

Can anyone shed some light on this? For some reason I don't think it has to do with trust. Or does it?

 

[frostbiker]

for the very reason that the VT shootings happened. Last thing you want on a military base is for some young private to go all Tom Cruise in "Taps" (THIS IS BEAUTIFUL!!! RAT-A-TAT-TAT).

 

[SquirrelNuts]

Or pull a PVT Pyle like at the end of the Paris Island portion of Full Metal Jacket.

 

[myrockfight]

?

So you are saying that the military doesn't trust its own soldiers?


Help me out with this, because this is being used as a reason for us lowly civilians to not be allowed to carry.

If the military cannot trust its own soldiers, who have had training, why should we trust a civilian to carry when he has had relative to the soldier, none.


Thanks for the help, in advance.

 

[JerryM]

I would have to say that the trust of military members by the military is not unlimited. There are those who become unstable.

A military base is maybe the safest place in the country, and it is not necessary to carry there.

I think it is a good idea to prohibit carrying there. The only problem is the prohibition to bring one on the base. When travelling it is very inconvenient.

Best,
Jerry

 

[frostbiker]

Really and truly, I think they put controls over who can and cannot carry (guards, RDF, training exercises) to prevent mutiny over all else. Last thing the .gov wants is a rogue military unit trying to stage a hostile takeover of Poughkeepsie County.

 

[Tsgtbob]

One big reason is it's not needed. Soldiers (and Sailors and Marines and Airman) have disipline! We may have disagreements and even fights on base, but for the most part, they end in "let me buy you a beer" conclusions, not all out shooting.

Another reason, is to protect the TAXPAYERS weapons! We spend a lot of money on M-16s, M203s, M240s and such. Want them lost, or pawned?
I didn't think so.

There are always the few, that may go "hollywood", but for the most part, those are self policed from with in the ranks, by that man's peers, and pointed either in the direction of counselling, or the Main Gate.

The last reason is this. You carry the danged bullet launcher out in the field, have to live with it, 24-7-365 on deployments, why the devil would you want to lug the blasted thing around off duty? I know I didn't.

 

[Lennyjoe]

No reason to carry on base cause like others have said, its one of the safest places to be for the most part. I lived on base for many years and owned weapons while living on base. I even CCW and when i leave the base I arm up and then de-arm prior to returing back to base. You must have the ammunition and the weapon seperated when gaining entry on to the base. Other rules apply so its imperative you are aware of what regulations are covered at the base you go to.

 

[The Amigo]

I drive to a military base on a daily basis and most of them provide a safe where u can store your personal weapons at the gate. I agree with the previous post. Military weapons go thru hell they get fired minimum every 3 months that's not counting war time and are exposed to all kinds of dirt. Its more of a matter of preserving the weapons that it is of trust. So if you are on watch or involved in some kind of duty requiring a gun you will get one issued.

 

[blitzen]

I was 22 years old when I mustered out of the Marine Corps in 1987 and I had already served for 5 years. Needless to say that most of the guys in the service are very young, and when we did have some free time our priorities were drinking and chasing women. It may be a shock to some but that's what young Marines did back then. If I remember right personel firearms had to be stored at the armory on base. Looking back I do think it is a matter of trust and maybe a good idea to only let them have arms and ammunition when they need it.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

So you are saying that the military doesn't trust its own soldiers?

Bingo!

 

[hank327]

So you are saying that the military doesn't trust its own soldiers?

You got it exactly right. When I first joined the Army, I was shocked when I saw all the restrictions and controls placed on us when we were under arms. Rarely were we allowed to posses both arms and ammunition at the same time. If you were found to be in possesion of a piece of brass (an expended cartridge case),
you were in deep kimichi. The ownership of privately owned firearms is greatly discouraged for soldiers living in the barracks. The military just doesn't trust Pvt.
Snuffy Smith with guns.

 

[rkh]

I think the more disturbing question is, why can't a serviceman or woman keep a firearm in his or her on-base home?

 

[tank mechanic]

I think the more disturbing question is, why can't a serviceman or woman keep a firearm in his or her on-base home?

This question comes up fairly often. You can have a privately owned weapon on post housing. It has to be unloaded and locked up. It also has to registered with the provost marshal and a Captain or higher has to sign off on the registration form.

 

[Walter]

Because....

#6
crownroyal
Senior Member


Join Date: 03-20-07
Posts: 138

Why would you even want to carry on a military base? Just curious to know....

I have a CCL, and I carry almost all the time. Once a year I visit my daughter and her family in Colorado. Her husband (my SOL) is in the military.
Their house is very small, so we can't all sleep there, but he (being "military")
can get us 'base lodging' for about 1/3 of what a motel would cost. And
it's pretty good accommodations, too.
The only problem is, I'm in Colorado with a handgun, and I can't carry it
onto the base. I did it once, BEFORE 9-11, but I won't even think about
trying it again.
So I have to unload and secure my handgun and leave it at their house
before I can go to my lodging to sleep. A royal P.I.T.A.! :banghead: :banghead:

You asked.....

Walter

 

[Max Beep]

Here's why I don't think the military allows firearms on base:

The government weapons are kept in the armory so they can be maintained by qualified armorers and issued when needed. Since the weapons are owned by the government they want to maintain close control over them for obvious reasons.

The base has its own police force probably at a higher cop to citizen ratio than out in town.

The base has lots of young people on board that are having their first taste of freedom. Mix with alcohol and guns and sometimes something bad can happen.

Because military folks follow rules the base commander knows that his order that personal firearms are not allowed on base will be followed.

They think same as the anti's that limiting privately owned firearms on base will lead to a lower incident rate, and it does, but only because of the unique characteristics of the military environment.

 

[bogie]

You pretty much don't need your private boomstick on post.

Now, that said...

There's a LOT of soldiers who fall on the left side of the bell curve.

You know all those firearms accidents you hear about right around deer season? Same folks after they get outta the army...

 

[coelacanth]

think about it for a minute....

the quartermaster has to account for every weapon and all the ammunition issued for use on post or on deployment if in a forward staging area. Simply issuing weapons for general carry is expensive, time consuming and generally unnecessary given that the MP's are the only units that go armed routinely in the performance of their duties on post. Police departments deal with this all the time and the wear and tear you see on duty weapons as well as the service life of same is why you routinely see used police trade-ins for sale at low prices compared to new. The armed forces have simply decided they don't really need this kind of hassle in a peacetime environment stateside. The losses of equipment during training are significant as it is over time so they don't intend to add to that if not absolutely necessary. Any JAG officer will also tell you that there are increased liability issues particularly where armed forces personnel are in contact with the civilian population and they don't want issued weapons complicating that either. Re: personal weapons, I think it just gets their olive drab shorts all in a knot because its, its, well dang it! its just not squared away!

 

[roo_ster]

The Army, especially officers, do not trust soldiers with weapons and ammo.

PVT Snuffy might have a NG and cost Officer Wanker his next promotion.

 

[AlaskaErik]

Why would you even want to carry on a military base? Just curious to know....

I don't necessarily want to carry on base, but the base is usually just one of a number of stops for me. So now I have to leave my weapon at home all day just because I'm making a stop at the base. That leaves me unprotected everywhere else.

 

[The Amigo]

let me say it one more time..

You can travel to a military base and check your gun at the gate. Usually they have small safes at the guard house where u can leave your weapon 24/7 checking in and check it out once you decide to leave for anything off base. Post safe has only one key and you get to keep it. Weapon must be unloaded prior to placing in safe. Its just a matter of talking to the security officer on base and asking. Some bases are more stringent mine you just let the guard know u are storing a weapon and your key is your receipt no paperwork filled and stored in less than a minute

 

[Str8Shooter]

I joined the Air Force in 1971. Want to know how much weapons training I received? Exactly two days in basic training. One day to acquaint us with the M-16, including breakdown and cleaning, and one day on the range. In the eight years I spend in the AF, I never touched a military weapon again except for an old Springfield bolt-action rifle with no sights that I fired blanks from in funeral details.

In the barracks where I lived, there were always a bunch of young airmen barely out of their teens who got drunker than skunks on weekends and caused enough trouble fighting and breaking stuff as it was without permitting them to keep privately owned firearms in their rooms.

When I was stationed at Elmendorf AFB in Anchorage, I had a nighttime job delivering pizzas. One time I entered a barracks on Fort Richardson with a delivery and was startled by a bunch of soldiers popping out of doorways with pistols firing blanks at each other down the hallway.

Think maybe the military has some good reasons for prohibiting personal weapons on base?

 

[telomerase]

So you are saying that the military doesn't trust its own soldiers?

Well, they did agree to kill people they don't even know for a nominal amount of money .

 

[MikeG]

The way it is around here is that married folks can have firearms in base housing, single troops can't have firearms in the Dorms (barracks). But dorm residents can store weapons in the Security Forces armory.

The Air Force Installations here that I go to have signs just before the gate saying no personal firearms on station. I haven't asked about lockboxes at the gate, I just don't bring them. I don't know how it is for the Army at Ft. Carson.

 

[Freelance Tax Collector]

I think some of y'all are missing the point.

Several years ago when I was in a debate class, I had a bout with a "leftist-elitist-to-be". She argued that being a military brat, and having the experience of living on many different air force installations abroad, she saw no point of having a personal firearm to protect onesself with. What with the MPs.... and the razor wire and the guards... what good could it possibly do?

My answer to her was that upon enlistment in the military, you elect to forego many of your constitutional rights. Should I commit a crime, I am subject to the uniform code of military justice, and I do not enjoy the full due process of a civilian. If I were to go on national television and tell the whole country how FUBAR I thought the Marine Corps is, would it be no surprise that I would quickly be silenced? See? I don't exactly have a right to "free" speech either. These are some of the sacrifices that we make. It makes the military society work much more efficiently but god forbid if that is how our American culture becomes.

Unfortunately for me, this means it is much more difficult for me to use firearms on a recreational basis. I still have my arsenal at home in Utah, and I can shoot when I go home, and there are ranges out in town that rent (I hate rental guns), but it still is next to impossible to be able to shoot consistently enough to improve my shooting skill. As far as training goes, don't kid yourself.... we don't shoot that much. I think the DOD is more interested in putting money into stealth supercarriers and automatic howitzers than the basic meat and potatoes like better chow, more ammo, and comfier flak jackets.

But that all is neither here nor there. Fact of the matter is, I think it's just part of the voluntary sacrifice you make when you choose to enlist, and like your other rights, the 2nd Amendment can be yoinked while you're working for uncle sam.