Lt. Gen. Bob Cone addresses media and waiting families hours
after the shootings on November 5th.
(AP Photo/LM Otero)
Related Articles
- Fort Hood tightens restrictions on guns--the wrong response, too late?
-
Fort Hood tightens restrictions on guns--would Hassan have given up? (Part II)
-
Fort Hood tightens restrictions on guns--would Hassan have been stopped? (Part III)
-
Fort Hood tightens restrictions on guns--what would stop "the next Hassan"? (Part IV)
Readers may not have noticed that there was news this week from Fort Hood, the scene of an evil attack in which 13 Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a U.S. Army officer turned traitor less than two months ago. It would be easy not to notice, since there seems to have been no national press reaction so far, but local news outlets are reporting new regulations. According to a story by Amanda Kim Stairrett of the Killeen Daily Herald, the new policy tightens gun regulations in three main areas. Military personnel who live on the installation and own privately-owned firearms must register those arms with their superiors, privately-owned firearms must now be stored in official arms rooms and checked out for use, and anyone who brings a privately-owned firearm onto Fort Hood for any reason must now register each firearm and then declare the firearm to security personnel before entering the base.
Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, who famously pointed out in November that the victims of Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan were unarmed because "we don't carry weapons here, this is our home," signed the order as base commander. No one at Fort Hood or the U.S. Army seems to be admitting officially that the policy is a response to the Nov. 5th attack, but the timing leaves little doubt. The question is, does this response make sense? Does it, in other words, make the next attack easier to stop? Certainly, from the point of view of the U.S. Army, anything that gives the commanders more data and more control over their soldiers will be seen as a good thing. But three important questions remain:
- Might Major Hassan have been dissuaded from carrying out his attack if he had been required to register his pistol and declare it to base guards before bringing it onto the base?
- Might Major Hassan have been stopped (by police or Army personnel) from carrying out his attack if those requirements had been in place?
- Does the announcement of these new regulations mean that other possible revisions, such as the recommendation that U.S. servicemen and women go armed at all times, have been rejected?
Part II of this series will be a closer look at the first question. Click the link in any one of the three questions above to be taken directly to that discussion.
Austin Gun Rights Examiner Howard Nemerov has followed the Fort Hood story much more thoroughly than the Chicago Gun Rights Examiner. See all articles tagged "Fort Hood Shootings" by Nemerov here.
Comments
Before we take a look at part two, let's take a look at Gen. Cone and all those peacetime soldiers who are elevated to the general staff. Am I the only one who has noticed that throughout history the generals who rise and prosper in the military are not soldiers or warriors, but politicians and posterior kissers?
Hnever occurred to anyone else that, with the exception of the American Revolution the generals whose leadership have won our wars are not the generals who were in place at the start of them
We only seem to value real men, real warriors, and real generals when we are afraid of someone or some nation or some army, and have no use for them once they have won the war,because they are not malleable and willing to surrender their honor to the political realities. Therefore the least qualified ascend to the general staff when our politicians are not afraid of being militarily removed by an enemy of the nation, [cont]
[cont] because they are malleable and have no principles they will not compromise to maintain their status.
I haven't been in the Regular Army, stationed on a Regular Post/Base, for a long time. However, the regulations quoted above were in effect when I was at Fort Ord in 1976-77, and at Ford Dix 1980-84. Also at MCB 29 Palms (USMC) in 1971. They are not new.
Pres. Clinton merely codified rules which were long in place when he came to office.
Note that when I mobilized through Fort Dix this year, we were relieved of all knives with blades over 4 inches during our stay there. This for Reserve Soldiers/Sailors/Marines/Airmen going to war. Stupid Bureaucrats Live On!
Mike Settles
Sergeant Major, USAR
In Iraq
straightarrow, regardless of personal feelings generals must follower orders, too. Ever consider that Gen. Cone is simply following a direct order from his superior?
Mr. Settles, do you mean that the three elements listed are not new? I'm not completely clear on that myself. My impression from my research was that different installations have different regulations, with some being much stricter than others, and that Fort Hood had been less strict than other bases where the above may have been the norm. In the interest of length and focus, I didn't go into that.
Do you think it's likely that this announcement doesn't amount to a real change in Fort Hood's regulations? I'd like to look into that. Let me know what you think.
Security theater, either way, but I might as well have my facts straight.
In the regulation cited by Lt. Gen. Cone's order, US Army 190-11, the section on privately-owned weapons is full of "may." The installation commander "may" develop a system for registration of privately-owned firearms (inevitably, in the military, they're called "POFs." All POFs are to be stored in approved arms rooms, except that the installation commander "may" authorize their safe storage in other areas of the base.
It looks like it was last revised in 1998, but that revision doesn't seem to have changed anything about POFs.
So it's plausible that Fort Hood allowed POFs in base housing under the commanding officer's discretion, and also that registration was not required (though it would have been necessary de facto for anyone who preferred to store his private weapon in the arms room.) I'll keep looking into it.
My experience in 30 years active and reserve was that every Army base 1) required registration of any privately owned weapon brought on base by military personnel or their dependents; 2) storage of such registered weapons in a unit arms room for personnel living in the barracks and 3) storage in base family housing for personnel living there IF APPROVED by the commander.
Personnel living OFF-base and storing their personal weapons there were generally not subject to these regulations unless they brought their weapon on post.
Since a number of bases also allowed hunting in certain areas, there was a procedure for civilians coming on base to hunt to declare their firearms.
This doesn't look like anything "new" so much as a reminder of existing policies.
And short answer is, No - of course it wouldn't have stopped someone intent on shooting people from bringing a gun on-base.
So, GSR, what do you think the announcement was about? Just intended to be a reminder, or reinforce the policy in some way?
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the existing policy hadn't been updated or signed by the current commander (each new guy should renew it, but a lot of this kind of stuff gets missed) and the JAG prosecutors told him that one charge they CANNOT use against Hassan is bringing/possessing an unregistered firearm on base.
In other words, "Ooooooooooops!"
Prior to the 1992(?) clinton BS Gun restrictions, an officer or senior Enlisted had the option of carrying a side arm whenever on duty or on post. The reason was obvious, some teed off young crazy soldier might decide the military wasn't for him and go off the deep end. It was a defense mechanism to protect all soldiers of the particular area. Not saying it would have made much of a difference here, but I believe it may have. It may have lessened the carnage. But now they decide to tighten even further. Go figure. The military needs to wake up and smell the coffee, or at least have a cup before they do something like this! What are they teaching in the Military OCS and West Point now days?
John, you are flat simply WRONG. At least as far back as the early '70s, NO ONE could go armed on base outside of range or other training except military police and persons escorting prisoners, ammuniton or weapons.
Among other things, I ran an arms room for awhile and had to know the regulations forwards and backwards.
Of course, since Clinton didn't even take office until January 1993.......
yes,keep the gun free zones,they work real good for killers dont they? YES THEY DO.....
So lets see, register the gun and keep it in the armory. Neither of which would apply to the major involved.
Declare it when you come on base. Unless that officer happened to be picked for a random search upon entering the base; the fact that he had a weapon would never be known by security personnel.
Just another attempt to do something, while accomplishing nothing.
Appearing to do something, while doing effectively nothing: We called it "Eyewash" back in the 80's and 90's ....
I'm a 22 year retired Army veteran. I have lived on Army installations since 1983-2004. At every closed post (limited public access) there has always been a post general order regarding privately owned weapons (POW's). Since my time in the service, post regulations are typically as follows; If you are a single soldier living in barracks (Dormitory type housing), no personal weapons are allowed and often includes knifes longer than just a few inches. However, if a single enlisted soldier has weapons he may register them, then be allowed to maintain them at the soldier's unit arms room. His access is often severely restricted and even if requested for approved activities, having an armor available at issue and turn in, when that soldier would typically require the weapon, it is often a limitation on available access. If you are an single officer (this varies at post for single officers) or a married soldier eligible for a government housing unit then all firearms must be registered at th
-at the Provost Marshall's office and the firearm maintained in the housing unit. The soldier is not allowed to transport the firearm, unless it is to be used in an "authorized" activity. Those activities include hunting and target shooting at an approved private weapons range (not all post have a private weapons range but most do). Personal defense outside of the individuals housing unit is not authorized and severe penalties can and will be initiated (loss of rank, loss of pay, dishonorable discharge or elimination from the military, and may include military jail time).
I have watched our own military being stripped of their civil rights, the same citizens who we entrust to protect our freedoms and civil rights. I have seen commanders issuing orders "for public safety and security" that violate civil law. I have watched the disarming of soldiers, when the situation required them to be armed and put the soldier and that of his fellow soldiers at harms risk. I have observed soldiers
Cont-The opinion that more restrictions, policies and laws to further regulate and deny honest citizens their civil right to self defense leaves one to consider if they actually work and serve their purposed intent. I think both pro and con gun control advocates would admit that if an individual is not safe from a lethal attack on a closed post with an entire library of rules and regulations, then how could we infer that more restrictions would work better or in our own public communities. When the American ruling class perceives an armed honest American citizen exercising his civil right to firearms ownership as a threat, rather than an asset then we risk not only losing our 2nd amendment right but also our other civil rights such as the right to free speech, due process etc.
I would like to refer back to "firearms ownership as a threat, rather than an asset". Most arguments for gun control completely ignore the positive effect of legal gun ownership. It's hard to quantify something that is often intangible, like the mere knowledge of a home, community or city that allows the legal right to gun ownership and insures it is not infringed by B.S. policies that only serve the needs of politicians who conceived them. The armed honest citizen is a powerful deterrent to criminal-lethal activity and as a last resort if the need should arise is a genuinely effective action to a lethal threat. If the first responder to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's attack was an armed soldier in the same room the outcome would have been dramatically different. Don't infer that I recommend arming every soldier 24/7 but if only 10-20% of the force was "on duty" with a concealed weapon approved and trained by the post they serve it would be an honest step in doing something effective rather
rather than a bunch of worthless words and writings. The same mind set that takes a soldier and trains him into a combat life saver/first responder (one with basic medical training and issued a medical set), that serves every combat squad or gun platoon and is integral to the unit should be applied with the use of lethal force.
Currently most states (all time high of 40 from 10 in 1987) now have right to carry laws that support the legal carrying of a concealed firearm and firearms ownership has increased dramatically without an increase in crime but in fact lower in those areas that allow it. The honest armed citizen is not a threat to our safety but is rather a force multiplier in our local communities and serves the general public where it is needed most in our community.
Sincerely,
Chris Golden, U.S. Army-RET.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!