TexasCHLforum.com

Policy changed after 9-11. I'm sure the Fort Hood shooting caused more changes.

The base comander has some leaway in "fine tuning" the Department of Defense policies concerning privately owned weapons on base. There were always some variance between installations.now it is worse. Some bases even prohibit ammo from being brought on base. Check with the base that you want to go to.

Before the Fort Hood shooting, some would allow you to store your firearms in the armory. Don't know if that is still possible. If you carry an automatic, consider carrying "gun parts" on base and not a assembled firearm. I have never seen a entrance sign prohibiting gun parts. If so, spread the parts out over the vehicle and even considering asking if parts are prohibited.

Little has changed since March 1993 when Newly anointed President Bill Clinton singed in to law, what effective disarmed Military personnel on military bases.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44, section 930 pretty well nails it down.
Before the shooting on Fort Hood, one could bring your on post registered weapon on to post with no extra measures, or fan fair. You of course not carry concealed due to Mr Clinton immoral act in 1993, but you could bring your weapon on post. (all will notice The Traitor Hassan failed to follow those rules and laws... The signs did not stop him, the paper laws did not stop him)

After the shooting, the post commander changed local police for III CORPS, you now had to register your weapon BEFORE it could com on post (vice bringing it on post and going to the MP office and registering it) You must now have your registrations papers with you, and you must declare the weapon to the contract security gate guards when you enter. At which point you will be pulled out of line, subject to a search for weapons you did not declare. And of course we know, criminals, will always follow the rules and laws, so we ARE safer,, with this policy,, The BG's now have to declare there weapon as they enter post to shoot us.

Like TSA, this policy is window dressing, it stops nothing. Random searches are a joke. I have been searched at the gate ("sir open you glove box") while I had a weapons case on the back seat ... and a box of 25 Winchester SXT. (gun was at home in the safe, I had left the case and ammo in the car for a few weeks, after I came home from a flight.. holstered the gun when I got to the parking lot and forgot the case and travel box of ammo in the back seat)

bronco78 wrote:Little has changed since March 1993 when Newly anointed President Bill Clinton singed in to law, what effective disarmed Military personnel on military bases.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44, section 930 pretty well nails it down.
Before the shooting on Fort Hood, one could bring your on post registered weapon on to post with no extra measures, or fan fair. You of course not carry concealed due to Mr Clinton immoral act in 1993, but you could bring your weapon on post. (all will notice The Traitor Hassan failed to follow those rules and laws... The signs did not stop him, the paper laws did not stop him)

After the shooting, the post commander changed local police for III CORPS, you now had to register your weapon BEFORE it could com on post (vice bringing it on post and going to the MP office and registering it) You must now have your registrations papers with you, and you must declare the weapon to the contract security gate guards when you enter. At which point you will be pulled out of line, subject to a search for weapons you did not declare. And of course we know, criminals, will always follow the rules and laws, so we ARE safer,, with this policy,, The BG's now have to declare there weapon as they enter post to shoot us.

Like TSA, this policy is window dressing, it stops nothing. Random searches are a joke. I have been searched at the gate ("sir open you glove box") while I had a weapons case on the back seat ... and a box of 25 Winchester SXT. (gun was at home in the safe, I had left the case and ammo in the car for a few weeks, after I came home from a flight.. holstered the gun when I got to the parking lot and forgot the case and travel box of ammo in the back seat)

18 USC 930 doesn't seem to specifically address US Military bases, except to the extent that the buildings could be considered
Federal Facilities as defined in the statute. And note that the buildings must be posted in order for you to be convicted. The buildings on bases that I've been to, were not posted. I'm not saying that there's no law or regulation against carrying on military "property" at all, just that it's not 18 USC 930. Military personnel are subject to the UCMJ and could be charged at a court martial for violating a regulation/base commanders' orders, but civilian visitors are not subject to the UCMJ. So I'd like to hear what federal statute a civilian would be charged with for carrying on base.

Little has changed since March 1993 when Newly anointed President Bill Clinton singed in to law, what effective disarmed Military personnel on military bases.

Why is it with so many of you people cant accept that a Democratic President can be just plain elected. Are memories so short that you dont remember President Bush being "appointed" by way of the Supreme Court. Its comments like that that to me at least wears on the credibility of the person making them. It dosent add anything positive to the discussion . I do agree however that our service member should have the right to carry a weapon on base lie the could almost anywhere else assuming they had a license of course. Fort Hood is a clear example why the laws are nothing but words people can choose to follow or not a person bent on killing many innocent people is not going to care about the gunbuster sign at the front gate,

loadedliberal wrote:

Little has changed since March 1993 when Newly anointed President Bill Clinton singed in to law, what effective disarmed Military personnel on military bases.

Why is it with so many of you people cant accept that a Democratic President can be just plain elected. Are memories so short that you dont remember President Bush being "appointed" by way of the Supreme Court. Its comments like that that to me at least wears on the credibility of the person making them. It dosent add anything positive to the discussion . I do agree however that our service member should have the right to carry a weapon on base lie the could almost anywhere else assuming they had a license of course. Fort Hood is a clear example why the laws are nothing but words people can choose to follow or not a person bent on killing many innocent people is not going to care about the gunbuster sign at the front gate,

You did note that it says ANOINTED, not APPOINTED, correct?

loadedliberal wrote:

Little has changed since March 1993 when Newly anointed President Bill Clinton singed in to law, what effective disarmed Military personnel on military bases.

Why is it with so many of you people cant accept that a Democratic President can be just plain elected.

I think the fact that Clinton pushed and passed the 1994 "Assault Weapon Ban" still sticks in the craw of a lot of gun-owners. Then again, after he left office, Reagan said that he supported the Brady Bill, since it derived from his assassination attempt.

That being said, the issues and the political parties themselves have shifted over the years.

a·noint (-noint)
tr.v. a·noint·ed, a·noint·ing, a·noints
1. To apply oil, ointment, or a similar substance to.
2. To put oil on during a religious ceremony as a sign of sanctification or consecration.
3. To choose by or as if by divine intervention.

Purplehood wrote:You did note that it says ANOINTED, not APPOINTED, correct?

Purplehood wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:

Little has changed since March 1993 when Newly anointed President Bill Clinton singed in to law, what effective disarmed Military personnel on military bases.

Why is it with so many of you people cant accept that a Democratic President can be just plain elected. Are memories so short that you dont remember President Bush being "appointed" by way of the Supreme Court. Its comments like that that to me at least wears on the credibility of the person making them. It dosent add anything positive to the discussion . I do agree however that our service member should have the right to carry a weapon on base lie the could almost anywhere else assuming they had a license of course. Fort Hood is a clear example why the laws are nothing but words people can choose to follow or not a person bent on killing many innocent people is not going to care about the gunbuster sign at the front gate,

You did note that it says ANOINTED, not APPOINTED, correct?

Yes and I find it insulting that to any president as "anointed" , we live in the greatest country in the world and one of the things that makes us great is our elections. To say Clinton was chosen by Devine intervention is ignoring the fact he was elected by we the people.

My apologizes for the confusion.. My reference to TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44, section 930 was IN ADDITION to the military regulations imposed under President Clinton which forbid specifically Military members from carrying a otherwise legally owned and carried personal weapon.

I did not intend to imply TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44, section 930.WAS or IS the guiding regulation that forbids personal carry on post.

As to My Anointed comment, it was less in derogatory nature and more to emphases he JUST TOOK OFFICE.
IN any case, I despise his time in office, his policy's enacted, his king like, to as I say not as I do attitude. But that is for a different thread.

ScottDLS wrote:

bronco78 wrote:Little has changed since March 1993 when Newly anointed President Bill Clinton singed in to law, what effective disarmed Military personnel on military bases.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44, section 930 pretty well nails it down.
Before the shooting on Fort Hood, one could bring your on post registered weapon on to post with no extra measures, or fan fair. You of course not carry concealed due to Mr Clinton immoral act in 1993, but you could bring your weapon on post. (all will notice The Traitor Hassan failed to follow those rules and laws... The signs did not stop him, the paper laws did not stop him)

After the shooting, the post commander changed local police for III CORPS, you now had to register your weapon BEFORE it could com on post (vice bringing it on post and going to the MP office and registering it) You must now have your registrations papers with you, and you must declare the weapon to the contract security gate guards when you enter. At which point you will be pulled out of line, subject to a search for weapons you did not declare. And of course we know, criminals, will always follow the rules and laws, so we ARE safer,, with this policy,, The BG's now have to declare there weapon as they enter post to shoot us.

Like TSA, this policy is window dressing, it stops nothing. Random searches are a joke. I have been searched at the gate ("sir open you glove box") while I had a weapons case on the back seat ... and a box of 25 Winchester SXT. (gun was at home in the safe, I had left the case and ammo in the car for a few weeks, after I came home from a flight.. holstered the gun when I got to the parking lot and forgot the case and travel box of ammo in the back seat)

18 USC 930 doesn't seem to specifically address US Military bases, except to the extent that the buildings could be considered
Federal Facilities as defined in the statute. And note that the buildings must be posted in order for you to be convicted. The buildings on bases that I've been to, were not posted. I'm not saying that there's no law or regulation against carrying on military "property" at all, just that it's not 18 USC 930. Military personnel are subject to the UCMJ and could be charged at a court martial for violating a regulation/base commanders' orders, but civilian visitors are not subject to the UCMJ. So I'd like to hear what federal statute a civilian would be charged with for carrying on base.

loadedliberal wrote:

a·noint (-noint)
tr.v. a·noint·ed, a·noint·ing, a·noints
1. To apply oil, ointment, or a similar substance to.
2. To put oil on during a religious ceremony as a sign of sanctification or consecration.
3. To choose by or as if by divine intervention.

Purplehood wrote:You did note that it says ANOINTED, not APPOINTED, correct?

Purplehood wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:

Little has changed since March 1993 when Newly anointed President Bill Clinton singed in to law, what effective disarmed Military personnel on military bases.

Maybe he used "anointed" because whenever a lib is elected, all the speeches claim it was God's will.

MasterOfNone wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:

a·noint (-noint)
tr.v. a·noint·ed, a·noint·ing, a·noints
1. To apply oil, ointment, or a similar substance to.
2. To put oil on during a religious ceremony as a sign of sanctification or consecration.
3. To choose by or as if by divine intervention.

Purplehood wrote:You did note that it says ANOINTED, not APPOINTED, correct?

Purplehood wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:

Little has changed since March 1993 when Newly anointed President Bill Clinton singed in to law, what effective disarmed Military personnel on military bases.

Maybe he used "anointed" because whenever a lib is elected, all the speeches claim it was God's will.

Funny. I seem to remember George Bush saying God wanted me to be president, also that seems to conflict with the theory all libs are Godless heathens.
What speeches are you refering too i would love to see a single quote of Obamas' where he said his election was gods will.

MasterOfNone wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:

a·noint (-noint)
tr.v. a·noint·ed, a·noint·ing, a·noints
1. To apply oil, ointment, or a similar substance to.
2. To put oil on during a religious ceremony as a sign of sanctification or consecration.
3. To choose by or as if by divine intervention.

Purplehood wrote:You did note that it says ANOINTED, not APPOINTED, correct?

Purplehood wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:

Little has changed since March 1993 when Newly anointed President Bill Clinton singed in to law, what effective disarmed Military personnel on military bases.

Maybe he used "anointed" because whenever a lib is elected, all the speeches claim it was God's will.

DING DING DING ..we have a winner (though it's not just DEMS, it's politics at large)

OK guys, cool it down and back on topic or the thread will be locked.

But, I will make one comment on this that I just can't pass up. Maybe it was more the dfinition for 1. They did call him 'Slick Willie'.

loadedliberal wrote:

a·noint (-noint)
tr.v. a·noint·ed, a·noint·ing, a·noints
1. To apply oil, ointment, or a similar substance to.
2. To put oil on during a religious ceremony as a sign of sanctification or consecration.
3. To choose by or as if by divine intervention.

Keith B wrote:OK guys, cool it down and back on topic or the thread will be locked.

But, I will make one comment on this that I just can't pass up. Maybe it was more the dfinition for 1. They did call him 'Slick Willie'.

loadedliberal wrote:

a·noint (-noint)
tr.v. a·noint·ed, a·noint·ing, a·noints
1. To apply oil, ointment, or a similar substance to.
2. To put oil on during a religious ceremony as a sign of sanctification or consecration.
3. To choose by or as if by divine intervention.

ok that was a good one.