eye95
Well-known member
The federal government can reasonably restrict any activity in a secure area. They can restrict entry and set conditions on entry.
The problem is that they take this authority way too far. In the "open" areas of installations (you still generally have to get past a guard, and the area is considered secure to a degree), such as exchanges, hobby shops, housing areas, etc., the commander should adopt local laws or, at most, add a requirement to get a base license. However, in other than open areas (such as flight lines, SP armories, etc.), it is reasonable and prudent to deny access to folks who are armed except for those designated to be armed to secure the areas.
Once you accept the reasonability of there being some secure areas where routine carry should be denied, then the question becomes where to draw the line on these areas. Currently, those lines are drawn way too liberally--and foolishly (e.g. Fort Hood).
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
The problem is that they take this authority way too far. In the "open" areas of installations (you still generally have to get past a guard, and the area is considered secure to a degree), such as exchanges, hobby shops, housing areas, etc., the commander should adopt local laws or, at most, add a requirement to get a base license. However, in other than open areas (such as flight lines, SP armories, etc.), it is reasonable and prudent to deny access to folks who are armed except for those designated to be armed to secure the areas.
Once you accept the reasonability of there being some secure areas where routine carry should be denied, then the question becomes where to draw the line on these areas. Currently, those lines are drawn way too liberally--and foolishly (e.g. Fort Hood).
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>