Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Reason #1
  • Reason #2
  • Reason #3

Site Description

Pentagon to Adopt Militarywide Gun Rules

Discussion in 'US Army Forum' started by Rob62, Apr 22, 2010.

  1. Rob62

    Rob62 XL Member

    Feb 25, 2000
    Georgia, USA
    Anyone know what these rules will be ?


    Pentagon to Adopt Militarywide Gun Rules
    April 16, 2010
    Associated Press

    WASHINGTON -- The U.S. military will adopt a broad policy governing how privately owned guns can be carried or stored at military installations after the shooting deaths of 13 people last year at Fort Hood, Texas.

    A disgruntled Army psychologist is charged in the deaths.

    Maj. Nidal Hasan had little or no access to military firearms in his job but was able to buy two handguns and bring them onto the base.

    Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered this week that a comprehensive new 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 by 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 warnings of violent behavior.
  2. user

    user VaLegalDefense

    Feb 15, 2008
    Va. and West Va.
    Oh, good. That's gonna stop crime.

    After all, it worked for Chicago, New York City, Prince George's County, Maryland and the District of Washington. Make a few rules and gun violence magically disappears!

  3. It will probably be very simple, you can't have privately owned firearms. Period.
  4. RepairMan

    RepairMan MSgt

    Jan 31, 2005
    Hopefully they'll take into account the many installations that have ranges including skeet/trap ranges open to anyone with base access. Not to metion AAFES sells firearms at many bases.
  5. Rob62

    Rob62 XL Member

    Feb 25, 2000
    Georgia, USA

    As far as I know ALL US Army installations have current policies that if any firearm is brought onto said installation for any reason, it has to be registered with the PMO (Provost Marshal's Office). This is applicable even to those firearms that are privately owned and stored off post.

    So for example if you are a military retiree and live near the post and want to use MWR (Moral, Welfare, and Recreation) facilities like a firearms range, that is open to privately owned weapons (POW's) then that gun has to be registered prior to or as soon as it crosses the gate.

    I got out in Sept. of 2000 so who knows what's happening now. The US military is not very POW friendly. Specially if you are a lower enlisted person living in the barracks.

  6. Jimbo25s


    Jan 10, 2010
    Macdill, AFB
    I hope they "ease" up on privately owned weapons. It's frustrating not to be
    able to carry any time i think i'm going to be headed to base.
  7. if only they had these registration laws in place before maj hasan went on his shooting spree he obviously would have been stopped before he started. dammit why didn't we think of this sooner?
  8. Swiper


    Dec 31, 2009
    Washington, DC
    As far as Fort Hood is concerned you only need to register the privately owned firearm if you are residing on-post or bringing the weapon on-post. If you live in the barracks you also must store the weapon in the unit arms room. If you live off-post you do not need to register the weapon unless you are trying to bring it on-post.
  9. Karbala03


    Apr 22, 2010
    More PC nonsense. The problem wasn't the gun. The problem was having an out in the open jihadist whom everyone was too scared to confront because he is Muslim. I've been out of the Army for 6 years now, sad to see common sense is still not very common in the "Big Army." Because you know, someone who has decided to murder people will probably stop. They really don't want to serve those extra few years on a gun charge, on top of the multiple murder convictions.
  10. NoyzeeGlocks


    Apr 25, 2010
    Sounds about right. 1 screw up ruins it for everyone.
  11. BRabbit

    BRabbit Millennium Member

    Feb 28, 1999
    Way down South
    In 1992, while at the Infantry Officer Advance Course at Benning, the CG of the post sent out a questionairre about firearms, asking what we had and where they were kept. I simply wrote on the form that I lived off post, and that any guns that I had were my own business protected by my 2nd Amendment rights. Surprisingly, I never heard back about it.

    When stationed there, from 88 through 92, I used to take my BHP to the M9 range to shoot whenever I had range duty, and no one in my command said anything about it, my Company Commander even had a shooting contest with me once, my BHP vs his M9, and my BN Commander heard I had bought an AR from one of my troops and tried to buy it off of me that same day. Of course, we were a combat arms unit, so guns were no mystery to us.

    This doesn't change the fact that in general you lose many of your rights while in the Army, and the organizational leadership is firearms stupid when it comes to rules regarding service members. My unit simply looked the other way.
    Last edited: May 13, 2010
  12. The Infidel189

    The Infidel189

    Feb 27, 2010
    It really blows my mind how stict the military is. Considering if you are in the military and some point you will have spent sometime aboard. Myself Afghanistan twice. You are in a job where when deployed you wear bodyarmor and carry weapons everyday. But when you are at home you are not really suppose to carry a weapon with you at anytime while on post. That kind of seems like a double standard to me. Anyways thanks for reading.
  13. Butch

    Butch RetiredDinosaur Millennium Member CLM

    Dec 17, 1998
    What gets me is how such supposedly intelligent people could think that registering privately owned guns (or even banning them on post) would have stopped Hasan from doing what he did.

    Like all gun control laws, such regulations really only apply to those who choose to abide by them.
  14. leadcounsel


    Sep 20, 2005
    I really hope that the military does the right thing and allow servicemembers to carry. I mean heck, if your STATE authorizes it, and if you're a highly trained professional, trusted to carry a weapon in combat, and trusted with expensive and dangerous weapon systems, you'd think that that same highly trusted and trained professonal could also carry on base!!!!

    Not to mention the fact that we are so Politically Correct that Hassam's anti-American statements were ignored by many members of his command. That could have also prevented this trajedy.

    I bet a 4th grader could figure out how to fix the problem. If a single person would have been allowed to CCW the FT. Hood incident would have never been pulled off. It would have deterred it or it would have been ended much faster by a permit holder.

    However I suspect this will mean massive restrictions on gun owners. Registration and other nonsense. I will be expecting it but disappointed nonetheless.
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2010