Confusing comments by Ft Hood Commander

[Skydivesnake]

First off - thanks to all those in service and their families, those who have served, and especially those that have lost their lives on behalf of this nation.

I just saw this story on Statesman.com http://www.statesman.com/news/content/n ... 5hood.html

The last couple of paragraphs are confusing, to me at least - my comments in square brackets.

----------------------------------
"After the reports, the officers took calls from active-duty soldiers and civilians. One caller asked about the new post rules governing firearms. All firearms entering Fort Hood must now be registered [they always have been - why this statement ?], Cone said, but he was adamant that soldiers at Fort Hood should continue to have weapons, both for on-duty and off-duty use [I thought they never have been able to carry firearms while off-duty, and very rarely do on-duty except during live-fire training].

"The intent is not to take weapons away from people [they already do, and will continue to, unless the ‘new rules' allow on-base carry under some kind of military licensing scheme, or with a CHL ?]; it's to make sure they register the weapons they do have [did Hasan register and declare his weapons when he bought them on the base prior to the shooting ? If not, how is this relevent ?]," Cone said. "I think a guard that doesn't have a weapon doesn't have a purpose." [agreed]"
----------------------------------

From the way it is written, it suggests that soldiers could already have been carrying if they had wished, that Hasan getting on-base with a firearm was simply down to a lack of some kind of registration scheme, and that on-duty military personnel are routinely armed anyway. Am I misreading the story, or is my understanding of firearms policy (civvie or military) on military bases just plain wrong ?

Thanks - SDS

[Oldgringo]

About 5 years ago, I did a job on Ft. Hood as a civilian contractor. After registering the vehicle and getting my ID Badge, I could, and did, come and go as I pleased through any gate. Occassionally, the guard would stop me but generally speaking, after they recognized the car, I and any passengers were waved through merely by flashing our badges. I don't recall any armed guards.

We could have carried in all sorts of weapons if we chose to violate the rules. What it's like since then, I don't know.

[Purplehood]

I have never been to Ft Hood. My latest experience was at Ft Bragg/Jackson and Dix in 2007. Ft Bragg was very security intensive. Ft Jackson and Dix were not.

[ammo two]

About 5 years ago, I did a job on Ft. Hood as a civilian contractor. After registering the vehicle and getting my ID Badge, I could, and did, come and go as I pleased through any gate. Occassionally, the guard would stop me but generally speaking, after they recognized the car, I and any passengers were waved through merely by flashing our badges. I don't recall any armed guards.

We could have carried in all sorts of weapons if we chose to violate the rules. What it's like since then, I don't know.

The Gate Guards are armed now. I think this is a policy change that took place sometime within the last year. It struck me by surprise the first time I noticed when I drove through the gate.

[ELB]

"After the reports, ... he was adamant that soldiers at Fort Hood should continue to have weapons, both for on-duty and off-duty use [I thought they never have been able to carry firearms while off-duty, and very rarely do on-duty except during live-fire training].

From the way it is written, it suggests that soldiers could already have been carrying if they had wished, that Hasan getting on-base with a firearm was simply down to a lack of some kind of registration scheme, and that on-duty military personnel are routinely armed anyway. Am I misreading the story, or is my understanding of firearms policy (civvie or military) on military bases just plain wrong ?

Thanks - SDS

I doubt you are misreading it so much as it is not a well written/researched story.

My experience, 23 years, on mostly USAF bases, but some Army posts as well:

Generally speaking, military members are restricted from carrying personal arms on base/post, or bringing them onto base/post, with exceptions for recreational use at the range -- many bases have sporting clubs that sell ammo, firearms, have various types of ranges. Single members living in the dorms/barracks usually had to store their personal arms at the base/post armory. Married members in base housing could keep their arms in their house. Members who lived off-bases could keep their arms at home, and I never ran into a unit that required telling anyone about them. I could bring them unloaded and cased onto base to use at the range, but not for general carrying around. There was no change in policy on this after 9-11. I certainly went armed off base with my CHL. There was no general rule that prevented this. However, a couple years ago there was an Army commanding general in Alaska who forbid all his troop from carrying concealed weapons on or off base.

Beyond the security police/forces (Air Force), I rarely saw military members on base armed with military weapons. During some exercises, and augmentation force -- basically enlisted members from on-base units who backed up the Security Forces -- would be armed with rifles. They would get a training course, then be posted as guards here and there. Then turn in the weaponry at Endex.

The actual implementation of these policies varied, and commanders could put in all kinds of restrictions (like that army general in Alaska), but basically they made sure you were unarmed on base except for a few duty positions. I never saw it happen, but I would guess that any military member, at least in the Air Force, found carrying his personal firearm on base would be quickly taken into custody, interrogated at some length, and would find his career effectively over at the end of it all. And that was true before 9-11. There were individual gunnies and shooting clubs within the Air Force, but as an organization, the USAF really wants nothing to do with small arms. I don't think the Army is much better, actually, outside of its ranges and the combat zones.

Registering guns on base will not do squat to prevent another Major Hassan from killing anyone. (And it certainly won't prevent a Ft Dix type attack). Major Hassan was an insider, and he took advantage of that, despite giving plenty of people plenty of warning that he should not be in the US military. You can't set up enough rules and procedures to keep everyone safe all the time - you have select people carefully to be your fellow military members. The Army failed miserably at this, and as usual (for the US, not just the military) the response will be to tighten controls on the law abiding because we are incapable of doing what is necessary to control the seriously mentally and violently ill, the criminals and the terrorists.

[casingpoint]

One thing to Gen. Cone's credit, a couple days after the Fort Hood attack, Cone was being interviewed on TV. He made the statement that such events could not be allowed become a regular thing in the military. The inference was the soft touch was over with Muslims in his Army. Everybody else up and down the line is attempting to "accomodate" them. That ain't gonna fly anymore.

[rm9792]

About 5 years ago, I did a job on Ft. Hood as a civilian contractor. After registering the vehicle and getting my ID Badge, I could, and did, come and go as I pleased through any gate. Occassionally, the guard would stop me but generally speaking, after they recognized the car, I and any passengers were waved through merely by flashing our badges. I don't recall any armed guards.

We could have carried in all sorts of weapons if we chose to violate the rules. What it's like since then, I don't know.

I was there 1990-94 and there were no guards and the freeway actually emptied in the base itself. You could enter from several sides without and guards in sight. Has it changed that much?

[gregthehand]

They "closed" the base in 2001 after 9/11. Closed just means that everyone has to show an ID now. The only base I was stationed at besides Hood that was a closed post before 9/11 was Ft Gordon. That was because of all the signal corps stuff. Anyway I got to Ft Hood in late 2000. When I first got there we just came on and left as we pleased. On and a little after 9/11 all vehicles got searched by soldiers with M-16s. I got put on gate guard in about 2002. We had to do 3 month shifts and it really sucked. I worked the absolute worst shift of 0500 - 1300. The reason why this sucked is that we got the morning PT shift and then the lunch shift. We checked all IDs and if they had a DOD sticker and a military ID then they got in. However sometimes we would do random inspections. If the car seemed strange we would call for one. The car would then get searched. Also we would do something like all white trucks get searched that day or something like that. Anyway when I was on the gate they issued us no weapons. I carried a pocket knife but that was it. We had one MP at the gate armed with a Beretta M9 and that was it.

[Shorts]

The last couple bases we were on it wasn't a surprise to see gate guards with their shotty, black rifle or M9. It was both AF and Navy stations and the the intensity of scrutiny at gate entry was based on the current threat level, plus any base wide exercises in progress.

[trvlgnome]

First-TX CHL rules do not apply on Ft Hood as it is a Federal installation, for anyone that doesn't already know that.

-This hunting season there was a change in policy regarding hunters on post; If you have an area access pass and hunting license you did not have to register your hunting firearm on post. Nor did you have to declare them at the gates unless asked by the guard. I assume these are the rules the CG has repealed.
I was kind of surprised there wasn't a big deal made about it since the incident happened 2 days before gun season opened.

-Law enforcement (local and federal) and ALL gate guards are armed on post. I don't remember exactly when all the gate guards were armed but, there was a change over in the last 2 years from AKAL to Walden(?) security and must qualify with a firearm to perform their duties. Having unarmed gate guards on a military base never made sense to me anyway.

[gregthehand]

They started changing to the civy gate guards at Ft Hood in late 2003. I can't remember what they were armed with. A lot of the guys who were getting out went and worked for them. They were all excited that they were going to be getting $18-$20 an hour just to stand gate guard.