Not looking for a debate. There is a lot of talk about how military personnel cannot carry weapons on post because of some laws passed in the early 90s. Lets not get in to who passed the law or whose fault it is.
What was it like before this directive? That’s what I would like to know. Were military personnel actually allowed to possess personally owned firearms at work in the 1980s? Did Soldiers walk around carrying concealed weapons? Was it common for Soldiers to be armed during a normal duty day? For those who were in the military before and after the directive, what exactly changed? For those who were in the military before the rule, how were personally owned firearms handled on base? What were the rules, regulations and generally accepted norms for carrying firearms of any type on base in your car, your office, your home and on your person?
They did not let us have ammo from basic other than at the range with supervision.
Non infantry units did not have weapons at the ready, we had weapon but they were in lock down unless issued.
Very few guys I know had personal weapons as it was a PITA. Company locked them up, had to sign out your own weapon, very few places on post, if any that allowed personal weapon shooting unless you were in the gun club.
Those that lived off base, some had weapons at home to go out & play with. Did not try to bring on post as far as I knew.
Average RA mind set of the enlisted ranks was quite different back then IMO.
Rampage on post — 14 cars would be flying at the shooter mo rickity scratch. We did not have weapons but there sure was some attitude.
Things are different now and in general, enlisted men of low rank for the most part have drank the Kool-aide.
Over seas, combat zones, different units, countries, I would not bet my life that they would not have something available.
That’s about what I’d expect. One, in movies showing the Army in the 1980s, soldiers weren’t all hanging out at the office or motor pool with sidearms and concealed weapons. Two, I can’t imagine the Army ever allowed such a thing. It is so foreign from the Army I know.
That’s what motivated this question. If things were always like this, then what exactly did this law change? If soldiers were never regularly armed on post, why do people cite this law as the reason why and act as if this was the big disarming of the military? How can you disarm a population that was never armed in the first place?
The Rod and Gun club is a fixture at most bases. At least it was in the 1960’s. My dad had personal weapons and we lived in base housing. All were properly registered on the base. He had a couple target pistols and several hunting rifles. He and my mom target shot at the Rod N Gun Club’s range.
The Rod N Gun Club raised pheasants. Released them just prior to hunting season.
Hunting is still allowed on post and most bases still have a gun range that allow service members to shoot personally owned weapons. All weapons brought on to base must be registered with the provost marshal. Hunting on base requires registration of firearms, a hunting license from the state and post-specific permit.
Another example of things not changing. I wonder what soldiers were able to do that they haven’t been able to do since the directive passed in '92?
As a USAF officer I had personally owned firearms on USAF bases & US Army posts throughout my time in, '81-89. They had to be registered with the base police when I resided on base.
It never occurred to me or anyone I knew to try to carry a concealed weapon to work. But we sure did when out on the town. And when going between town and a on-base residence.
I suspect that carrying a concealed weapon at work would have been frowned on. More as a matter of “what’s wrong with your psyche; what threat do you think you’re defending against?”
Urbanredneck: Because police is different from Army. US police normally have as part of their general duty description being armed full-time and most often are able to act as police even in their off hours so they keep their concealed backup piece on themselves. The military, OTOH, for generations now, when in-garrison and NOT in the war zone, have only been armed when on such duty as requires it and in such case you are armed overtly with authorized weapons.
Also, remember, a person in the military is not just another public servant, and residence on post for the families is not the same as residence in the civilian community. Part of it is that you (and your family if they live on post) may keep and bear your weapons, if any, only in the way Command approves.
A military base is like any Government complex. Some people might be carrying more firearms than usual but usually as equipment on stock, not ready to blast any drive by shooter. Security considerations are the same as anywhere.
I joined in 1989. Eventually I had a couple of personally owned handguns. They had to be locked up in the arms room at all times. It was a pain in the ass to get them out to go to the range on a weekend since the armorer was off duty. I was single living in the barracks.
I had friends living in on base housing. They were allowed to have their personally owned weapons in their housing unit. I don’t know if that changed with the 1992 directive. I was single in the barracks the whole time I was active.
My Basic Course was late 91 through early 92. ISTR getting briefed on the post policy about privately owned weapons as part of inprocessing. ISTR it being very similar to what endured for the rest of my career including CONUS mobilization time later. Since I didn’t have any firearms at that point, I didn’t have any troops to make sure were in compliance, and I had a gold bar inhibiting my mental processes…
i went through Basic at Harmony Church at Ft. Benning in 1981. The rule was no weapons of any kind ,ever. Rifles were stored in one armory, bolts in another and ammo, still farther away. We weren’t even allowed knives. Same was true for my seven years with the Nebraska National Guard. But that’s just me, I was vaguely aware of some gun clubs at Ft. Benning and was aware that some officers and such carried personal weapons during training in Nebraska to protect against theft of the actual M-16’s and what not.
I don’t think you understand the question. The past few shootings on military installations have each brought up the point that military personnel are not allowed to possess firearms while on duty. With that comes various levels of outrage, and the blame game starts. People are quick to point out that the restriction was passed during Clinton’s administration, so it was Clinton who disarmed the troops and its all his fault we can’t defend ourselves. Others point out that the law was actually created during the G. H. W. Bush administration, so it was Bush Sr. who disarmed all of the troops.
Regardless of whose fault it is, there is never any debate about the fact that in 1992, DoD Directive 5210.56 was passed, which forbid soldiers from being armed on base or on duty except in a war zone.
My question in this thread is: What exactly changed, if anything, due to the passing of this directive? It seems to me that soldiers were not allowed to be armed at work even before the directive. So why is Congress being pressed to change this law back to how things used to be. Apparently, things didn’t used to be any different.
There is no shortage of articles like this one that blame Clinton for making military bases “gun free zones”. http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2013/09/17/when-military-gun-free/
Here is a Stars and Stripes article talking about how Congress is once again being asked to change the law and allow soldiers to be armed on base. Even this article explains that the current policy was first passed in 1992.
If soldiers were not allowed to carry guns on duty before 1992, and they still can’t after 1992, then what exactly did this law change? And why do people act like prior to 1992, soldiers were just walking around the office and the PX wearing sidearms or concealed weapons?
Nope. Hasn’t changed. Soldiers in the barracks are allowed to own firearms, they just have to be stored in the company arms room. Soldiers living in on-post housing can own whatever they want and keep it in their house, albeit secured and unloaded. I currently live on post and I own about 18 firearms, including a couple silencers and SBRs. The only stipulation to owning them is that I register them on post and I securely store them unloaded. If I am taking them off post, I have to transport them unloaded and secure in the car until I exit the gate. Then I can load it and put it in a holster if I choose. Similarly, to get on base, I have to un-holster, unload and secure. And I have to drive straight home without stopping for gas or at the store. I also have to declare the firearms at the gate and anytime I happen to be stopped by law enforcement while driving to/from the gate.
When hunting or shooting at a range on post, the firearms can be loaded at the site of the activity, but must be unloaded before putting them back in the car. And personnel are not permitted to make other stops while leaving or going to the activity.
The rules are pretty strict, but they are not out-right restrictive. It seems that the rules were always pretty similar to this according to the few posts so far. It doesn’t seem like this law actually changed anything. What was the purpose and motivation behind it, I wonder.
US Air Force around 1975. I was an aircraft mechanic and we didn’t carry guns of course. About once a year we had to fire an M-16 in the general direction of a target to stay qualified.
Personal weapons: I lived in the barracks at Cannon AFB NM and they had one of their quarterly drug raids. They didn’t find much in the way of drugs; however, the squadron commander was pretty perturbed by all the guns found. We were well armed! I had a .410 shotgun and 44 Magnum pistol myself. We were ordered to store them at the Security Police armory. We could check them in and out about any time we wanted. Bringing them on and off base wasn’t an issue as long as they were unloaded and stored somewhere not easy to reach like the trunk of the car.
