Skip to comments.EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban
Posted on 11/14/2009 3:14:24 AM PST by iowamark
Time after time, public murder sprees occur in "gun-free zones" - public places where citizens are not legally able to carry guns. The list is long, including massacres at Virginia Tech and Columbine High School along with many less deadly attacks. Last week's slaughter at Fort Hood Army base in Texas was no different - except that one man bears responsibility for the ugly reality that the men and women charged with defending America were deliberately left defenseless when a terrorist opened fire.
Among President Clinton's first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones...
Because we clearly cannot protect our soldiers from harm, the least we owe them is the right to protect themselves.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Noted a few days ago on FR in:
It is a damn shame that since 1993 we have not had a Conservative in the White House who could have overturned that Clinton ban.
I thought the reg was older than that ..... more pure genius that just keeps on giving, from DIRTXPOTUS.
What an ideological scumbag.
How about instead, "All officers and NCO's above E-6 will be armed at all times in garrison"?
Even if it's only a Kel-Tec belly gun with a five-round mag.
Great idea, but Hussein is more likely to order civi cops to police bases than arm the soldiers - the more of them gone - by whatever means - the better for him. If Husssein had not inherited the wars, he would likely push for more base closings and drastically reduce the armed forcces to Canada size.
This for sure:
1. There will be more killing on U.S. Soil.
2. There will be more PC and BS from DR. PHIL.
3. There will be more gun control on our bases.
4. There will a terrible incident which will serve as a pretext for a cancellation of the 2010 election.
Nothing short of a revolution!
I didn’t know about President Clinton’s action in 1993, I retired in 1986. Someone educate me.
I first saw military weapons secured under lock and key in 1965. Our rifles had been kept in rifle racks in our barracks. One day a sergeant came in and rigged a chain and lock to secure them. In early 1966 they were secured in arms rooms. When I returned from overseas in 1970 both military and private owned weapons were secured in arms rooms. A soldier had to have his commander’s permission to checkout his personally owned weapon. In Virginia a soldier could not purchase a firearm without the commander’s permission.
What change did Clinton make?
Q: Why don’t you shop at the base exchange?
A: Exchange prices are no lower than at Walmart.
Q: But at least there is no sales tax at the base.
A: Walmart let’s customers be armed. Which is more importent to you?
Everything you said, except there WILL be a 2010 election. Even if it is for president of the new Confederate States of America....
Clinton should be brought up on charges of denying the soldiers rights and negligent homicide.
Essentially, Slick-Willy just codified a policy that was already in place. I was in the military in '93 and never noticed it as there were no changes in training policies or day-to-day operations.
While at Bragg, living off-post, I had been able to put a gun in the trunk of my car, go to work, and stop at an indoor range on the way home and cook a box of blammo. Great way to let off steam...
When I got to Hood, a senior NCO of my acquaintance cautioned me about ever getting caught with a gun in my car. It was worth a quick trip to Ft. Livingroom, at least, with a lengthy layover at Ft. Leavenworth if III Corps CG was having a bad day-- and III Corps CG was always having a bad day.
And here I was all happy about being assigned to Texas...expecting universal open carry and poolside Christmas parties. Disappointed on both counts.
When I was last at Ft. Sill in 1995 (Clinton), I had my personnel weapon in my quarters (officer) with my Commander's written permission.
I really think personnel weapons policy has more to do with individual post Commanders and the surrounding State laws. So Clinton had minimal effect in this regard.
That being said, there was one Clinton policy that came down the line which irked everyone. A regulation was issued that ANY soldier under a court order, or who had a domestic battery misdemeanor/felony conviction or indictment was banned from possessing his military issued weapon,, period.
At the beginning of each field exercise soldiers were required to sign a legal document in the arms room affirming they were not under any such judicial restrictions.
Policy continued for several months, and then with no fanfare simply stopped happening.
Anyone remember that?
He took away base commanders flexibility and initiative. Until his order, the people who were armed on a military post were decided by the commander of the post.
Clinton did a great deal to reduce the power of base commanders. Under his rule, base commanders lost:
Civilian Personnel function.. Moved to centralized locations.
Base facilities (roads,housing,buildings) Moved to centralized command.
Contracting (buying supplies, equipment, and services) Moved to centralized command.
All of these moves decreased the authority of base commanders and made it more difficult to get the job done at the base where I have my day job.
America is under attack by terrorists. Army bases are big targets. Our soldiers need to be able to protect themselves ! Give them back their guns !!!
I’m pretty sure the reg is older than that.
Ironically we were discussing the very thing while I was on duty yesterday. I think it is a huge slap in the face that military members can carry weapons, use weapons the public largely will never see, and they are trusted to do so in one of the most stressful environments (OEF/OIF), yet cannot be trusted to do the same back home, in a lower stress environment (largely lower stress anyway). I am not saying to issue a gov’t weapon, if you own one, then that should be your choice.
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.