End Clinton-era Military Base Gun Ban
For those who are wondering why an army base of all places is, effectively, a gun-free zone, the Washington Times notes its origins:
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 of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division. That’s why a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s rampage.
Everyone wants to keep people safe – and no one denies Mr. Clinton’s good intentions. The problem is that law-abiding good citizens, not criminals, are the ones who obey those laws. Bans end up disarming potential victims and not criminals. Rather than making places safe for victims, we unintentionally make them safe for the criminal – or in this case, the terrorist.
The wife of one of the soldiers shot at Fort Hood understands all too well. In an interview on CNN Monday night, Anchor John Roberts asked Mandy Foster how she felt about her husband’s upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: “At least he’s safe there and he can fire back, right?”
Mayor Daley could not be reached for comment.
The 1993 Clinton ban was already being practiced in one form or another as far back as 1983. I know, I was on Fort Hood back then. CO’s have the authority to do a no-knock, no-warrent “Health and Welfare” inspection on any of their soldiers. If you are caught with a weapon, even too large a knife, you will be prosecuted.
I’d be willing to wager that, right now, Health and Welfare inspections are going on all over that base and several other. In order to be “Proactive”, unit commanders at all levels need to appear as if they are “Doing Something About the Problem”.
Hasan knew those people would be unarmed and helpless. Thanks Bill, your decisions as the Commander-in-Chief just keep on giving.
The Israelis are practical about Terrorism, not “politically correct” or terrified of offending anyone’s sensibilities.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2749/4094067711_0c30c7deb1_m.jpg
IDF women soldiers at home on leave:
Never unarmed
Never dependent
Never unsafe
Not so the US Army.
below — IDF women waiting for the bus (at least 2 have visible mags in their M-16s).
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2739/4094828194_8c6bf87618_m.jpg
I thought federal enclaves could no longer do weapons bans after Heller. Military base commanders should be questioned whether they intend to obey Heller or defy the Supreme Court. Their answers should be quite revealing.
“Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart…”
Uh, guys, that’s not the right comparison. I suspect that in most places in the world you would face less return fire than in attacking a Texas Wal-Mart.
Maybe you meant to say terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Hollywood sushi bar…
The US military has always been unarmed when they return to CONUS. The base police are the ones who have been armed. Whether they be civilian (DOD) or military police. The Police officer was a base (DOD)police officer. The Commander of the base, any base Commander can and has always been able to authorize anyone to wear a weapon, for security purposes. The failure here was PC. Investigators bound by PC. Commanders bound by PC. Everyone was PC. That gets people killed.
Big Boy Bob: The clips are not in the M-16s, it is illegal for us to have them in the stock and it’s extremely dangerous; they are attached to the handle with an elastic band – takes about 1.5 seconds to pull it of and put a bullet in the chamber. Safety first or we go to jail.
I served in an Israeli Elite unit and am currently a Captain in the active IDF reserves. We need to sleep with our weapons while on base even if it’s just the first week of boot camp or face the consequences of abandoning a weapon – COs like to steal our weapons to make an example. Everywhere we go the weapon goes with us. Off duty even in civilian clothes going out to the movies we need to take the weapons if they cannot be secured at home or you have younger siblings. In the Lebanon front, a terrorist was able somehow so get into a fort in the 1980′s and stole a weapon that eventually killed Israelis in an attack. Ever since we sleep and even take our weapons to the showers with on guy holding/watching over them.
Point is, at some rare cases someone will off themselves but just because of that, it does not give a civilian president the right to take their point of existence away. A weaponless soldier is just a person dressed up in a Halloween custom. If a soldier wants to commit suicide it’s not that hard a task to complete without a weapon. In the IDF we through go many psych evalvuations all the time and we watch each other and report if someone is down. If someone mentions thinking about suicide, they get their weapons taken away immediately and discharged as we do not want our kids doing something stupid because of too much pressure. Where you are weak is where the terrorist see opportunity as Fort Hood showed us.
IDF and US forces are very different. We, in Israel fight because if we don’t, no one else will and we will all die – or politics are left at home – scream for peace and going to rallies makes no difference when you are in the front lines being shot at for being a Jew. In the US, too many people join for the sake of finances when the US is in peace or to learn skills to bring back to the gangs. When I was in Fort Hood visiting a friend 3-4 years ago before he was deployed to Iraq, I was shocked to hear they have gang problems, not just at that base all around the nation. How can a gang exist in the Military is beyond me. I was also surprised to see civilian police every two blocks on base as well as MPs. That was odd, but luckily, at least you have the police with weapons and good training. But the biggest shocker was that I, a civilian can go into base without a problem as long I show an ID. That’s a huge breech! In Israel, if I’m off duty from Friday to Sunday and I try going back to base on Saturday, I will not be allow entry!
Events like this Ford Hood terror attack can easily be prevented by increasing security and other changes. How many people in the US still think “this will never happen to me or around me”. Only when that mindset is eradicated, all those that are popping up now saying oh ya he was a whack job need to own up responsibility for the terror and personally apologize to the relatives for not reporting him or following up on their report to verify it is being taken care of. This is still the only country in the world where you will not be prosecuted for not speaking up or assisting someone in a life threatening situation like a car accident. And the military needs to stop being afraid of offending other races or whatnot. It’s the military not a democracy!!! Soldiers choose to be part of and accept the “dictatorship” style of the military.
And a question: Do bases here not not have a ready room full of soldiers waiting to be called into action in case of an attack lock and loaded ready to go?! If they do, where were they when this was happening? Why is the civilian police protecting the military soldiers?! It’s a bit shameful and pathetic if you ask me and I do not mean to offend any soldier or American.
And many soldiers in the IDF are Israeli Arabs (over 20% of the population there is Arab Muslims). It is illegal for them or for Russian immigrant or any other nationality, to speak anything but Hebrew. They are also screened more intensely than an average Israeli Jew but we do not allow someone we think may possibly have any ties (regardless how small) to the extreme or radical Muslim factions anywhere near a weapon or the Military. Jews from the settlement areas, especially religious orthodox Jews get scrutinized and profiled because one crazy religious fanatical Jew killed innocent Muslim Arabs with Military weapons in the early 90′s, so now many orthodox Jews still get looked at in a different eye, profiled, and go through more evaluations before, during, and after the service so innocent people regardless of religion or race do not die.
WHAT BASIS WAS THE 1993 GUN FREE ZONE ENACTED?
“WHAT BASIS WAS THE 1993 GUN FREE ZONE ENACTED?”
Almost certainly under the president’s authority as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. It might be insanely silly and an over-reaction, but it is probably perfectly legal to have such a prohibition in place.
The question to ask ourselves is not what his motives are but why on a military base (You know that place with lots of guns) the shooter got a chance to shoot more than one round?
The scenario SHOULD have been. Shooter hops up on table. Soldiers that notice think it is a joke.
Shooter shouts “Allahu Akbar” and pulls out his pistols (if not already out)
15-20 Soldiers around him (realizing this is not a joke) pull their service pistols, Drop to kneeling position and take aim.
Shooter discharges 1 round wounding a soldier.
15-20 Soldiers, seeing that they are firing up (no people behind the shooter) discharge their weapons 1-3 times each.
Shooter meets Allah.
News headline
“1 dead, 1 wounded in attack on military base.”
At most 2 dead.
No need to care about the shooters motives.
Unfortunately because of a Clinton (Bill) policy from the early 1990′s all military bases are “gun free zones”. All of our highly trained soldiers were forced to stand around like sheep in a slaughterhouse.
It took a traffic cop with a gun to neutralize the attack.
TMLutas: Military service members do not have constitutional rights. They have regulations. And since all post are closed post now; you, as a civilian, give up yours when you enter them. It is that part of the constitution where congress sets the rules for the military.
Service members can own personal fire arms, but they must be stored in the unit arms room or at the post gun club (almost every army post has one). They MUST be registered with the provost marshal (post head police officer) too.
In ancient times soldiers living in post housing, typically E-5 and up and married, could keep their personal arms in their quarters (at home). Once upon a time officers and NCO’s could carry their own firearms in the field too. Soldiers in barracks have almost always had their issue arms kept in a locked rack or a arms room in this century.
I lived in Switzerland for several years and every able-bodied male Swiss citizen (females optional) serves in the Swiss Army until 52 for officers. Their foreign policy is neutral not pacifistic. They are issued weapons that are kept at home and regularly practice their markmanship at firing ranging scattered throughout the country. The crime rate in Switzerland is very low. Surprised?
No reflection on the troops, or the good commanders–but for the most part the military doesn’t trust its people and would rather lose some now and then than to treat them like grownups.
When I was in USAF security police in the mid-60s our main function was to be cheap, expendable trip-wires. I did more shooting and had better weapons as a civilian than I did when I was guarding nuclear weapons. We used to speculate as to just how easy it would be to infiltrate the base and destroy resources and people.
As usual, the IFD has it right and we keep thinking “it can’t happen here”. Yeah, right.
Some things don’t change. During the end of the Vietnam war, we were deploying squadrons to South Vietnam and Thailand. I always wondered why the Vietnamese didn’t send a couple boat loads of sappers to destroy our home base, which was right on the ocean. There was one armorer in the armory, and one guard outside. The rest of the base was unarmed, except for the MPs, and maybe a guard or two on the flight line with shotguns.
It would have been the NVAFs biggest victory and they wouldn’t have needed a plane.
This PC nonsense will kill more of us until somebody acknowledges the obvious. We are at war, and the enemy is trying to kill us, and there is no such thing as a non combat zone.
IDF22, Robert,
You both are speaking as people who are personally unaware of the charged nature of the US Army in the 1970′s due to racial conflict in the barricks during the transition from the draft Army to the all volunteer Army.
Much of the the US Military senior brass loved the 1993 Clinton order because it absolved them of any responsibility for either gun-shot suicides or on-base force protection from terrorism and armed crime.
This careerist anti-self defense attitude was not limited to on-base self-defense and is multi-decade long in duration.
It also included the 11th ACR on the inter-German border and the 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea during the mid-to-late Cold War.
During the late 1980′s, Cold War on border patrols in Germany routinely did not carry ammunition.
Even when they did carry ammunition it was either depot packed (at first) or loaded in magazines inside sealed and banded ammo cans.
I am informed that in OP Alpha ammunition was in the arms room, depot packed, and banded. This was even after 2 incidents I’m told US troops received small arms fire in conjunction with border crossing incidents. It took very specific ROE steps to issue the ammo much less fire.
This was even true in Korea where a US officer was axed to death by North Korean savages during Jimmy Carter’s presidency.
Even in Italy, in an 1980′s environment where US troops were targets of the Red Brigade and other groups American servicemen were not issued ammunition. Not even officers or senior NCOs.
Under Clinton, the USAF security troops at the Khobar Towers did not have live ammunition to engage the suicide truck bomb.
This was also true of the USMC barricks in Lebanon under Reagan. The USMC gate guard did not have a loaded clip in his M16 when the suicide truck went through his check point. (He should have has a loaded 40mm grenage launcher with a manned .50 caliber HMG behibd him as back up at all times.)
If I were king of all Londinium and wore a shiny hat I’d decree that henceforth the uniform of the day for all officers and NCOs would include their issue sidearm. I’d do this because it really is a pain in the butt to carry a weapon every day so it shouldn’t be optional.
Of course if I wore that shiny hat I’d go even farther and decree that Vermont-style carry laws would be the law of the land. No reason civilians should remain vulnerable targets either.
Civilian misconception – that military personnel are “issued” arms. In CONUS, arms are very strictly controlled; issued only to on-watch personnel in security roles. And don’t lose even a single round, or else you’ll be talking to the Commanding Officer.
The prohibition on carrying weapons on post are sensible and there for a reason.
It’s not a rights issue. It’s a discipline and safety/public order issue.
Publicly owned weapons are controlled more tightly on a military base than most civilians can imagine. The largest scale training exercise will be halted and units will be kept in the field for days or even weeks to search for a lost weapon (or ammo).
Only those Soldiers who have a purpose to carry a loaded gun are afforded the responsibility to do so.
There would be more senseless deaths from personnel being able to carry personally owned weapons around on base. For every criminal or terrorist attack stopped, you would have many, many more instances of servicemen shooting each other over a drunken disagreement in the barracks (or at the on base club) and disgruntled servicemembers shooting their COs or NCOs after getting an article 15 or courtmartial.
Bottom line is that a post commander is responsible for everything that happens on post. If given a choice, I would bet every one would choose to ban POWs as a control measure to regulate who has access to dangerous weapons on post.
As an E-5 in the Guard, I routinely request for my platoon to be assigned to training missions at a facilities in which I am allowed to carry my own sidearm (which I legally carry concealed), rather than go to a federal military base where weapons are either prohibited or kept locked up.
I believe that as an NCO, it is my responsibility to keep my soldiers safe no matter what. If I cannot keep them safe, then what is the point of them obeying my orders? The quote above by the Israeli soldier is priceless; that my ACUs are a halloween costume if I am unarmed.