Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Colo. Ct of Appeals rules in favor of on-campus carry | Main | DC voting "rights" bill »

Safe at last!

Posted by David Hardy · 16 April 2010 09:58 AM

Department of Defense has reacted to the Ft. Hood shootings by imposing regulations on private arms possession. Muslim fanatic Nidal Hasan would certainly have stopped in his tracks if he knew he would have to violate regulations in order to carry out a mass murder. Now we only need to promulgate regulations forbidden unlicensed possession of explosives in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then never get around to printing up the licenses, to bring Al-Queda to its knees.

13 Comments | Leave a comment

matt | April 16, 2010 11:32 AM | Reply

Seems to me the right regulation is that anyone *unarmed* without a good reason (PT, crawling around inside a power plant, under psych evaluation) is out of uniform.

5thofNov | April 16, 2010 11:56 AM | Reply

I would make sure every one of them would be armed with a pistol, both on and OFF base. They would be allowed to use their own pistol.

The only restriction I would place on them, is they must use 9mm, .40 or .45

Kevin P. | April 16, 2010 12:27 PM | Reply

What is the nature of the regulations?

Bill Mullins | April 16, 2010 2:53 PM | Reply

The last line of this article

http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/04/16/37482-gates-adopts-26-fort-hood-panel-recommendations/?ref=news-home-title1

indicates that there are not yet, in fact, any new regs on private arms possession, but there will be some by June.

Bill Mullins | April 16, 2010 3:16 PM | Reply

This:

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/DOD-ProtectingTheForce-Web_Security_HR_13Jan10.pdf

is the Fort Hood Panel's Jan 2010 report.

This memo from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

http://www.defense.gov/news/d20100415fthood1.pdf

implements 26 of the 79 recommendations of the report, including the following:

"Recommendation 3.8: Review the Need for a DoD Privately Owned Weapons Policy

The Independent Review found that the Department does not have a policy governing Privately Owned Weapons. In the absence of such policy, the individual Services have established Privately Owned Weapons policies, which set minimum standards and task installations commanders to establish installation-specific requirements. These policies do not apply to personnel who live off installation.

The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence will prepare and coordinate a Secretary-issued Department-wide Interim Guidance Message by June 2010. By early 2011, the interim guidance will be incorporated into a revision of DoD 5200.08-R (Physical Security Program)."

Matthew Carberry | April 16, 2010 4:17 PM | Reply

"These policies do not apply to personnel who live off installation."

Um, no.

I believe the regulation forbidding Army personnel to carry concealed weapons (while not wilderness recreating) per state law while off post is still in effect in Alaska.

No other post commander(s) may have such a regulation but they certainly are able to promulgate and enforce one.

bombloader | April 16, 2010 5:36 PM | Reply

"I believe the regulation forbidding Army personnel to carry concealed weapons (while not wilderness recreating) per state law while off post is still in effect in Alaska."

I don't know if this policy has been challenged, but I do believe there is precedent that base commanders cannot require personnel off base to register their weapons.

Paladin | April 16, 2010 6:23 PM | Reply

You'd think Warriors would have more sense when it comes to firearms and defense etc.

Unbelievable. And to think at one time I actually submitted myself to the "command" of these mental midgets. GEEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!

Dan Hamilton | April 17, 2010 3:04 PM | Reply

You must remember that the higher officers are POLITICAL. High Officers and Politicians have NEVER trusted soldiers with arms except in battle or on duty guarding stuff. Even while guarding they mostly don't allow them ammo.

The High Officers and Politicians send soldiers out on patrol during civil unrest and disaster with rifles but without ammo.

With all of that you expect them to EVER allow soldiers to carry. They would rather have thousands die then to allow that.

Ach | April 18, 2010 5:10 PM | Reply

Clearly, all they need to do is implement a regulation banning criminal behavior. No crimes may be committed on base! Problem solved! ...

Mark | April 18, 2010 8:08 PM | Reply

No order forbidding carry off post will ever be obeyed. Not by me, at any rate. My right to self defence trumps some O-6's desire for promotion.
Any officer issuing such an order should know that such an order will laregly be ignored. What's that they teach in the academies? Never issue an order you know will not be obeyed?

Chris (Mainsail) | April 19, 2010 3:00 PM | Reply

How about this: Every active duty military member in good standing and above the rank of E-5 and O-3 will carry a firearm (handgun or rifle or shotgun, or any combination deemed necessary) at all times while on post and on duty. All personnel identified above will proceed to the base armory immediately upon entering the post for issue of weapon(s).

It’s doubtful a mass shooter would be successful in part A of their plan (to kill lots of people) before part B (suicide) is initiated.

Erin | April 22, 2010 12:49 PM | Reply

My husband is a COL at FLW, MO. He was filling out the required paperwork for leave. On the back of the POV inspection checklist is a series of questions and declarations. One such declaration is "I do/Do not own firearms. I will secure my firearms in my off/on post housing or the arms room." When he inquired about the legality of it, he was told it's policy now, a result from the Ft. Hood incident. Note that no where does it leave room for concealed carry. Also, I called the NRA to get their take. I was told that it will be DOD policy (announced 3 days ago--still trying to locate the article) that on and off Post/Base military members will be required to register their firearms. This came directly from the NRA legislative group. The lady I spoke with said there is nothing they can do. All of the articles have read deny this, but I really don't believe they would own up to until it's time to implement.

Leave a comment