TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote:My anti gunners are of course having a field day. They can't let the AR 15 thing down though. Apparently it is being reported he tried to buy a AR-15 in Virginia, but was turned down, because of their strict gun laws. He was out of state. They are also talking about the fact that the shot gun broke down and he used buck shot. (the shotgun equivalent to hollow point) I guess buck shot will be outlawed because of this.

On the other, side a right wing blog is reporting that Marines have reported that they could have stopped the shooter after three rounds, if they were only allowed to have ammunition for their weapons.

That is the big ticket item. MP's need loaded weapons. IF their weapons were not loaded that is a joke and somebody needs to be held accountable.

texanjoker wrote:

philip964 wrote:My anti gunners are of course having a field day. They can't let the AR 15 thing down though. Apparently it is being reported he tried to buy a AR-15 in Virginia, but was turned down, because of their strict gun laws. He was out of state. They are also talking about the fact that the shot gun broke down and he used buck shot. (the shotgun equivalent to hollow point) I guess buck shot will be outlawed because of this.

On the other, side a right wing blog is reporting that Marines have reported that they could have stopped the shooter after three rounds, if they were only allowed to have ammunition for their weapons.

That is the big ticket item. MP's need loaded weapons. IF their weapons were not loaded that is a joke and somebody needs to be held accountable.

Pretty sure that is not an On duty SP or MP being referenced..They are the few on a Mil installation that have a weapon (legally) but like every other military installation, only the Civilian guards, Federal police (if used) and ON DUTY MP (SP) have a weapon and ammunition.

The 10's of thousands of trained weapons experts at each post and base are not allowed to have a firearm or weapon of most any kind on base.. You can mostly thank former Pres Bill Clinton for that, and every Base or Post commander , president there after for continuing the madness

philip964 wrote:My anti gunners are of course having a field day. They can't let the AR 15 thing down though. Apparently it is being reported he tried to buy a AR-15 in Virginia, but was turned down, because of their strict gun laws. He was out of state. They are also talking about the fact that the shot gun broke down and he used buck shot. (the shotgun equivalent to hollow point) I guess buck shot will be outlawed because of this.

On the other, side a right wing blog is reporting that Marines have reported that they could have stopped the shooter after three rounds, if they were only allowed to have ammunition for their weapons.

If the shotgun "broke down", it was probably because he didn't clean it first, or because he didn't know how to run a shotgun properly. Has anyone heard what brand/model of shotgun he used? I mean, when the AR-15 was used by that evil-doer in Connecticut, the mass media screamed out to all parts of the planet that it was a Bushmaster. Amazing how things change when the FACTS of an incident don't fit the carefully crafted narrative the mass media wishes to tell. As always, my disgust with them knows no limits. The mass media isn't responsible for all the problems in this nation, but they are a big part of the problem.

K.Mooneyham wrote:

philip964 wrote:My anti gunners are of course having a field day. They can't let the AR 15 thing down though. Apparently it is being reported he tried to buy a AR-15 in Virginia, but was turned down, because of their strict gun laws. He was out of state. They are also talking about the fact that the shot gun broke down and he used buck shot. (the shotgun equivalent to hollow point) I guess buck shot will be outlawed because of this.

On the other, side a right wing blog is reporting that Marines have reported that they could have stopped the shooter after three rounds, if they were only allowed to have ammunition for their weapons.

If the shotgun "broke down", it was probably because he didn't clean it first, or because he didn't know how to run a shotgun properly. Has anyone heard what brand/model of shotgun he used? I mean, when the AR-15 was used by that evil-doer in Connecticut, the mass media screamed out to all parts of the planet that it was a Bushmaster. Amazing how things change when the FACTS of an incident don't fit the carefully crafted narrative the mass media wishes to tell. As always, my disgust with them knows no limits. The mass media isn't responsible for all the problems in this nation, but they are a big part of the problem.

Broke down means he carried it in with the barrel and or stock removed from the receiver and then reassembled it before the shooting. That would make it more easily carried in and concealed.

Keith B wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:

philip964 wrote:My anti gunners are of course having a field day. They can't let the AR 15 thing down though. Apparently it is being reported he tried to buy a AR-15 in Virginia, but was turned down, because of their strict gun laws. He was out of state. They are also talking about the fact that the shot gun broke down and he used buck shot. (the shotgun equivalent to hollow point) I guess buck shot will be outlawed because of this.

On the other, side a right wing blog is reporting that Marines have reported that they could have stopped the shooter after three rounds, if they were only allowed to have ammunition for their weapons.

If the shotgun "broke down", it was probably because he didn't clean it first, or because he didn't know how to run a shotgun properly. Has anyone heard what brand/model of shotgun he used? I mean, when the AR-15 was used by that evil-doer in Connecticut, the mass media screamed out to all parts of the planet that it was a Bushmaster. Amazing how things change when the FACTS of an incident don't fit the carefully crafted narrative the mass media wishes to tell. As always, my disgust with them knows no limits. The mass media isn't responsible for all the problems in this nation, but they are a big part of the problem.

Broke down means he carried it in with the barrel and or stock removed from the receiver and then reassembled it before the shooting. That would make it more easily carried in and concealed.

Sorry didn't mean to confuse. The reports were he assembled the shotgun in the bathroom. I assume folding stocks and buck shot will be next on the agenda for the antis.

Keith B wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:

philip964 wrote:My anti gunners are of course having a field day. They can't let the AR 15 thing down though. Apparently it is being reported he tried to buy a AR-15 in Virginia, but was turned down, because of their strict gun laws. He was out of state. They are also talking about the fact that the shot gun broke down and he used buck shot. (the shotgun equivalent to hollow point) I guess buck shot will be outlawed because of this.

On the other, side a right wing blog is reporting that Marines have reported that they could have stopped the shooter after three rounds, if they were only allowed to have ammunition for their weapons.

If the shotgun "broke down", it was probably because he didn't clean it first, or because he didn't know how to run a shotgun properly. Has anyone heard what brand/model of shotgun he used? I mean, when the AR-15 was used by that evil-doer in Connecticut, the mass media screamed out to all parts of the planet that it was a Bushmaster. Amazing how things change when the FACTS of an incident don't fit the carefully crafted narrative the mass media wishes to tell. As always, my disgust with them knows no limits. The mass media isn't responsible for all the problems in this nation, but they are a big part of the problem.

Broke down means he carried it in with the barrel and or stock removed from the receiver and then reassembled it before the shooting. That would make it more easily carried in and concealed.

My mistake, Keith. I thought that they were saying that he used the shotgun until it malfunctioned, then went to the handguns he had acquired. I do understand the concept of a firearm that disassembles for transport. Lots of firearms do that, though, so I guess it just didn't register that way.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Navy yard shooter was given security clearance by same folks who brought you Edward Snowden, the leaker, whistleblower, traitor, humanitarian person who now has sanctuary in Russia.

I am wondering about the issue of the response team being told to stand-down and its commander being replaced a day later.

Since the response team is a Federal unit, that makes it answerable to or influenced by the Executive-branch of government. Did they stop it from intervening in order to make a little crisis even bigger?

E.Marquez wrote:.. The 10's of thousands of trained weapons experts at each post and base are not allowed to have a firearm or weapon of most any kind on base.. You can mostly thank former Pres Bill Clinton for that, and every Base or Post commander , president there after for continuing the madness

That's what I initially thought, but it was actually a DOD directive under Bush's administration in 1992:

Contrary to an assertion in yesterday's column, the policy that forbids most U.S. military servicemen from carrying firearms on base did not originate in the Clinton administration. Rather, according to TheBlaze.com, it was the Bush administration--the first one--in a February 1992 Defense Department directive.

- James Taranto, Wall Street Journal, 9/20/2013

johncanfield wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:.. The 10's of thousands of trained weapons experts at each post and base are not allowed to have a firearm or weapon of most any kind on base.. You can mostly thank former Pres Bill Clinton for that, and every Base or Post commander , president there after for continuing the madness

That's what I initially thought, but it was actually a DOD directive under Bush's administration in 1992:

Contrary to an assertion in yesterday's column, the policy that forbids most U.S. military servicemen from carrying firearms on base did not originate in the Clinton administration. Rather, according to TheBlaze.com, it was the Bush administration--the first one--in a February 1992 Defense Department directive.

- James Taranto, Wall Street Journal, 9/20/2013

I don't know where they got that drivel from...first of all, I tend to believe the SMAJ and my own experience since 1976 is the same. The carry of firearms on base has always been very restricted.

philip964 wrote:... Apparently it is being reported he tried to buy a AR-15 in Virginia, but was turned down, because of their strict gun laws. He was out of state. ...

More baloney.

From Emily Miller, Washington Times:

The New York Times attempts to give the impression that a so-called assault-weapon law stopped Alexis from buying a rifle in Virginia, but that is not true.

...

“Virginia law does not prohibit the sale of assault rifles to out-of-state citizens who have proper identification,” Dan Peterson, a Virginia firearms attorney, told me Tuesday night. The required identification is proof of residency in another state and of U.S. citizenship, which can be items like a passport, birth certificate or voter identification card.

While it is true that Alexis rented and shot an AR-type rifle at Sharpshooters Small Arms Range in Lorton, sources close to the investigation tell me that he did not attempt to buy the rifle.

...

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z2fRZedic4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

The NYT, as well as the MSM in general, is absolutey unreliable when it comes to firearms laws (and firearms in general).

johncanfield wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:.. The 10's of thousands of trained weapons experts at each post and base are not allowed to have a firearm or weapon of most any kind on base.. You can mostly thank former Pres Bill Clinton for that, and every Base or Post commander , president there after for continuing the madness

That's what I initially thought, but it was actually a DOD directive under Bush's administration in 1992:

Contrary to an assertion in yesterday's column, the policy that forbids most U.S. military servicemen from carrying firearms on base did not originate in the Clinton administration. Rather, according to TheBlaze.com, it was the Bush administration--the first one--in a February 1992 Defense Department directive.

- James Taranto, Wall Street Journal, 9/20/2013

Kind of..
DoD Directive 5210.56 is the governing document.

And it has been issued, concealed and reissued several times under several presidents.

So we can say ONE issued it (when the directive then included the wording forbidding anyone but "DoD personnel to carry firearms while engaged in law enforcement or security duties, protecting personnel, vital Government assets, or guarding prisoners." and verbiage that specifically forbids concealed carry buy non law enforcement or investigative personnel.
Then we have every president there after that allowed the reissue of the directive,, right up to the current one.

The issueance of this directive that may have started it all..
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BUT I can not yet find previous issues of this document.

The version that replaced the 1992 directive
http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=446" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Of note... NOTHING in the DOD directive forbids a local commander (base/ post / MACOM level) from designating as many of his command as he wants to be armed daily.

4.1. To limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian
personnel. The authorization to carry firearms shall be issued only to qualified
personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be
jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm
shall be made considering this expectation weighed against the possible consequences
of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms. DoD personnel regularly engaged in
law enforcement or security duties shall be armed. In addition, safety lock devices and
instructions for their proper use shall be provided with all firearms issued to such
personnel who have been authorized to retain firearms at their residence

He literally could direct every Military member who is current, qualified and trained on a military issue personal weapon and has no derogatory action pending against them to be armed daily while in a duty status.

Of Note 2:
It is Army Reg 190-14 issued in 1993 http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r190_14.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
that was first to forbid a soldier from carrying a non issue weapon.

"o Limits and controls the carrying of firearms by Department of the Army
military and civilian personnel (para 2-6).
o Prohibits the carrying of non-Government owned or issued weapons or
ammunition (para 2-6)."

I don't know where they got that drivel from...first of all, I tend to believe the SMAJ and my own experience since 1976 is the same. The carry of firearms on base has always been very restricted.

See my post above.... the drivel is mostly correct.. if you squint just right.
The DOD directive first appears to define who can have weapons under Bush.. BUT it does not keep any post commander from arming as many as he feels are needed.

The Army Reg 190-14 issued in 1993 does in fact limit who an Army commander can arm, allow to be armed, and with what.

E.Marquez wrote:

I don't know where they got that drivel from...first of all, I tend to believe the SMAJ and my own experience since 1976 is the same. The carry of firearms on base has always been very restricted.

See my post above.... the drivel is mostly correct.. if you squint just right.
The DOD directive first appears to define who can have weapons under Bush.. BUT it does not keep any post commander from arming as many as he feels are needed.

The Army Reg 190-14 issued in 1993 does in fact limit who an Army commander can arm, allow to be armed, and with what.

Let me refine my response...in practice it has been restricted for as long as I can remember. I always wondered about the vulnerability of stateside garrisons but understood where the CG's were coming from.

Purplehood wrote:Let me refine my response...in practice it has been restricted for as long as I can remember. I always wondered about the vulnerability of stateside garrisons but understood where the CG's were coming from.

I spent several months at Tan Son Nhut AB (Saigon) and the only time I was armed (I was USAF enlisted) was when I went off base while on-duty - had to check out an M16.

Hopefully the policy of only a select few personnel being armed on bases stateside and foreign will be completely re-evaluated given Ft Hood and then WNY tragedies.