Is the current order banning fire arms now an unlawful order? Is an order preventing soldiers from self defense unlawful?

1LT Otis R. — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 15:54:21 -0400

Given the current environment and specific threats does the order banning fire arms constitute an unlawful order?

Response by SSgt Scott Schwerman made Jul 18 at 2015 4:02 PM

SSgt Scott Schwerman — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 16:02:09 -0400

I haven't heard anything about banning firearms.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2015 4:08 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 16:08:12 -0400

As a First Sergeant in a recruiting squadron, what happened on Thursday is why I lose sleep. My issue is we have known about these threats for a long time now. Why weren't the proper precautions made? The Army Corp of Engineers is in charge of obtaining and maintaining off base recruiting offices. It takes a long time to get blinds replaced in offices so my follow on questions are rhetorical. Why werent the windows replaced with bullet proof glass? Why doesn't each office have a camera at the front door with a door buzzer to let people in? Why aren't there barriers creating a stand off area between the outside access offices? I understand these folks are in civilian communities, but they are still military members, and they should be afforded the same rights and protections as other military members stationed on a base. If I was a recruiter right now you best believe I would carry something to protect myself. At the end of the day these hero's should be going home to their families, but because we are a reactionary entity 5 of our own will not. This one hits home and creates a very emotional response from me. God bless the 4 Marines and Sailor killed by the coward that claims his actions in the name of a religion. I pray for their families in this time of pain and loss.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2015 5:14 PM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 17:14:55 -0400

Yes and no. Technically by 2nd amendment standards, Soldiers should be able to carry firearms off duty according federal, state and local laws but while on Military installations, Military members don't have the same rights and until that changes, that's the pill that we have to swallow.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Jul 18 at 2015 5:54 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 17:54:00 -0400

It's not very smart. Who better to handle firearms than those best trained?

Response by PO2 Skip Kirkwood made Jul 18 at 2015 6:16 PM

PO2 Skip Kirkwood — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 18:16:48 -0400

If it was a lawful order last week, it would still be lawful this week.

There is a great difference between "lawful" and "smart." Certainly not a smart order.

Response by 1LT Otis R. made Jul 18 at 2015 6:17 PM

1LT Otis R. — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 18:17:28 -0400

OK....when I was on active duty during the first gulf war, OD’s were under arms. The OIC/NCOIC were armed at all times. This was a standard practice in units at Ft. Knox. If base commanders and brigade and up have latitude with this order why has this continued? When is a failure to act proactively against an established threat gross dereliction of duty? Thank you for your thoughts, words and wisdom.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Jul 18 at 2015 6:20 PM

LTC John Shaw — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 18:20:25 -0400

1LT Otis R. No, not in a workplace. The federal government is responsible to provide a safe, secure workspace and has experts to determine what levels of security are needed. I am for open carry for service members but we must also follow law and the laws are clear.
The federal directive started under George H.W. Bush and was further pushed by a Clinton 1993 DoD directive.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2015 6:29 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 18:29:33 -0400

Is this a lawful order to not have fire arms? Yes, absolutely. There's not even a question about that.

Is it logical? No, not at all... But it's still a lawful directive