Firearms on military bases

[Bithabus]

As has been discussed on this forum before, Federal Law prohibits firearms inside Federal facilities, but not generally on Federal property http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00000930----000-.html. It is illegal to bring a gun inside a building on a base, but not into the parking area, etc. Some members have indicated that base commanders prohibit personnel from bringing firearms onto the base, however. My question is, for those of us not subject to UCMJ, can any legal sanction be imposed for violating the edict of a base commander?

 

[ghostscout]

When I lived on fort hood, my buddy was taking me back on base and we happened to be the lucky subjects of a random inspection and he had a handgun in the glove compartment, which they found. MPs came and inspected the weapon, ran the serial number, found that it wasnt registered on base and gave him a ticket and confiscated to the weapon to be picked up at the station at a later time.

 

[Bithabus]

When I lived on fort hood, my buddy was taking me back on base and we happened to be the lucky subjects of a random inspection and he had a handgun in the glove compartment, which they found. MPs came and inspected the weapon, ran the serial number, found that it wasnt registered on base and gave him a ticket and confiscated to the weapon to be picked up at the station at a later time.

But was that lawful?
What kind of ticket did they give your friend?

 

[majormadmax]

I believe the greatest penalty that could be imposed on someone not subject to the UCMJ would be a suspension of all base privileges. For those of us that still work on a base, that would be pretty substantial...

That said, the only instance that I've heard of on this base where someone was busted for having a weapon in their vehicle was entering the gate with it in plain sight on the seat next to him. The individual also lied, claiming he had authorization to bring it on base. He was a Reservist, emphasis on 'was'...

But I agree, there is no violation of Federal Code (USC 18, §930) in bringing a personally-owned firearm on base, so you could not be prosecuted under that law.

And as I've stated in the past, I routinely shoot at Camp Bullis, and have no issues in bringing unloaded firearms on base.

Cheers! M2

 

[TexasRedneck]

ummm....as I've been told by the folks at Lackland AFB, you may NOT enter the facility with a firearm in your POV. Period. We didn't get into the possible ramifications - maybe because I've always been taught to respect the rules of a host - but they DO have a procedure whereby you can check your weapon in at the armory and pick it up as you depart. Every base I've ever been on has the same or similar procedure.

 

[scgstuff]

Military installations typically do not allow people to carry on them, at least not on the ones I have worked on. I think each has it's own regulations. Here is the reg for Fort Hood...

Fort Hood Reg 190-11

 

[Bithabus]

ummm....as I've been told by the folks at Lackland AFB, you may NOT enter the facility with a firearm in your POV. Period. We didn't get into the possible ramifications - maybe because I've always been taught to respect the rules of a host - but they DO have a procedure whereby you can check your weapon in at the armory and pick it up as you depart. Every base I've ever been on has the same or similar procedure.

This thread isn't about what some MP or security guard says, but what Federal Law says. It sounds like the worst they can do is make you leave. I was wondering whether some obscure Fed law made it illegal for civilians to disobey the edicts of a base commander while on a base.

 

[Bithabus]

Military installations typically do not allow people to carry on them, at least not on the ones I have worked on. I think each has it's own regulations. Here is the reg for Fort Hood...

Fort Hood Reg 190-11

Thanks, that's great.
Apparently a civillian could be prosecuted under TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 67 > § 1382 for entering a base "for a purpose prohibited by lawful regulation" (such as transporting a firearm).
United States Code: Title 18,1382. Entering military, naval, or Coast Guard property | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[TexasRedneck]

Was just fixin' ta post that for ya...I knew they had a "way" to do it, just couldn't remember what it was, and so I was reading the Ft Hood info and spotted it....but you had, as well. Uncle Sugar usually has a way of enforcing his demands....<G>

 

[majormadmax]

Thanks, that's great.
Apparently a civillian could be prosecuted under TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 67 > § 1382 for entering a base "for a purpose prohibited by lawful regulation" (such as transporting a firearm).
United States Code: Title 18,1382. Entering military, naval, or Coast Guard property | LII / Legal Information Institute

Sorry, but that does not apply. Firearms are allowed on base per US Code, it is the base/post commander's policy that prohibits it and that is not what that statute is covering. Title 18 §1382 pretty much allows the prosecution of civilians trying to enter the base who are not authorized to do so.

Whoever, within the jurisdiction of the United States, goes upon any military, naval, or Coast Guard reservation, post, fort, arsenal, yard, station, or installation, for any purpose prohibited by law or lawful regulation; or
Whoever reenters or is found within any such reservation, post, fort, arsenal, yard, station, or installation, after having been removed therefrom or ordered not to reenter by any officer or person in command or charge thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Plus, a commander's authority is not defined as being "law" or "lawful regulation" over civilians. I had this explicitly spelled out for me by the JAG when I was first put on G-series orders.

It's been years since I've read it, but in the following UCMJ "bible" we were given...

The Military Commander and the Law

...here is what I could find after a quick search:

COMMAND AUTHORITY OVER CIVILIANS
− The commander has authority over, and acts as the employer of, civilian employees
-- The commander can give promotions and bonuses, as well as impose sanctions
-- The AFI 36 series defines this relationship
− The commander has less authority over nonemployee civilians on base
-- As “mayor” of the base, the installation commander has authority to maintain order and discipline, and to protect federal resources
-- As a practical matter, this authority may be limited to detaining individuals for civilian law enforcement officials and barring them from the installation
-- The installation commander may bar an individual from the base for misconduct but must follow certain procedural requirements
-- The commander has almost no authority over civilians off base
REFERENCE:
U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2
UCMJ arts 89, 90, 92
AFI 51-604, Appointment to and Assumption of Command (4 April 2006)

The two lines I highlighted show what limited actions a commander could take against civilians not employed on base. As you can see, it's not much more than banning them from the installation and handing them over to civilian authorities if a law was broken (which in this case would not apply as no Federal law was broken, just the local commander's policy).

Cheers! M2

 

[txinvestigator]

My job takes me to a military post in LA. It is an ammunition depot, and there are at least two explosive manufacturers plants. They have signs prohibiting firearms. Due to the complexity of federal laws, regulations and rules,;as this thread clearly demonstrates there is much disagreement over this, you will not find ole Txinvestigator attempting to carry onto the post.

No way, no how.

Ya'll continue the argument. It is interesting.

 

[Col J]

Depends on base/post. Camp Mabry in Austin allows concealed carry with CHL. Ft Sam Houston in San Antonio, I had to place the gun in the trunk.

 

[Bithabus]

Sorry, but that does not apply. Firearms are allowed on base per US Code, it is the base/post commander's policy that prohibits it and that is not what that statute is covering. Title 18 §1382 pretty much allows the prosecution of civilians trying to enter the base who are not authorized to do so.

Plus, a commander's authority is not defined as being "law" or "lawful regulation" over civilians. I had this explicitly spelled out for me by the JAG when I was first put on G-series orders.

It's been years since I've read it, but in the following UCMJ "bible" we were given...

The Military Commander and the Law

...here is what I could find after a quick search:

The two lines I highlighted show what limited actions a commander could take against civilians not employed on base. As you can see, it's not much more than banning them from the installation and handing them over to civilian authorities if a law was broken (which in this case would not apply as no Federal law was broken, just the local commander's policy).

Cheers! M2

So, the orders of the base commander do not count as "lawful regulation"? Interesting.

That Ft Hood handbook posted above states that firearms found on base can be permanently confiscated. Any idea where that authority would come from? Seems to me that taking a civilian's weapon and refusing to hand it back, when no law had been broken, would be theft.

 

[scgstuff]

I have my firearms registered on Ft Hood, and only carry them when going to the range. I declare them at the gate, they pull me over to check the serial numbers, and I head to the range. If I am not going to the range, I do not have them with me. I like my job, and the mortgage company likes me paying them, so I will abide by the regulations that I posted.......

 

[majormadmax]

So, the orders of the base commander do not count as "lawful regulation"? Interesting.

Not to those not subject to the UCMJ.

That Ft Hood handbook posted above states that firearms found on base can be permanently confiscated. Any idea where that authority would come from? Seems to me that taking a civilian's weapon and refusing to hand it back, when no law had been broken, would be theft.

Well, the Ft Hood handbook can say anything it wants; but they would be facing a lawsuit if they were to confiscate one of my weapons and not return it. It is typical of the Army to write heavy-handed regulations, sometimes beyond their legal authority.

All that said, I still refrain from taking any weapons on bases that have signs against it; even if the signs are not legal (such as Lackland) I know what the Federal law is, and how it applies to me; but I also know the reality of how much asspain would be involved if I were discovered to have a personally-owned firearm and honestly I'd prefer to avoid the hassle.

But the bottom line is that US Code is clear in that it only prohibits the possession of personal weapons in government facilities!

By the way, Camp Mabry in Austin is a state-owned facility.

 

[just jk]

civilians found in violation of a law are tried before the U.S. Magistrate - unless its a felony and then its U.S. District Court judge and the US Attorney's office

You guys can engage in all the legal analysis you want - but i assure you this has been vetted thru the legal system - if you are in violation of a commanders policy or a legal statute - the proper LE authority on post will run it thru the system

 

[just jk]

Sorry, but that does not apply. Firearms are allowed on base per US Code, i

Cheers! M2

really? which US Code are you referring to?

 

[Bithabus]

civilians found in violation of a law are tried before the U.S. Magistrate - unless its a felony and then its U.S. District Court judge and the US Attorney's office

You guys can engage in all the legal analysis you want - but i assure you this has been vetted thru the legal system - if you are in violation of a commanders policy or a legal statute - the proper LE authority on post will run it thru the system

What would be the charge for a civilian found to be in violation of a Commander's policy?

 

[zembonez]

Right or wrong, when you are on a Military base, you are subject to the military rule as implemented on that base. I've spent a lot of time on and seen a lot of variations between bases here in SA. For example: Randolph has very different regulations than Fort Sam. As long as you play by their rules they are pretty cool. From my experience, you better not take a firearm into Randolph, but a CHL carrier can secure his in the trunk on Fort Sam.

Why would anybody push it just for the sake of "proving a point"? Seems idiotic.

 

[majormadmax]

really? which US Code are you referring to?

It's mentioned several times in this thread...USC 18, §930; which states personally-owned firearms are only prohibited in Federal facilities (explicitly defined as buildings).