TexasCHLforum.com

At least during the 23 years I was in the USAF, ending in 2005, the basic policy was airmen living in the dorms/BOQ had to store weapons in the armory; people living in base family housing could keep them in their houses. All subject registration of course. Individual procedures about how to do this varied, as noted by AFCop above. Now that I am retired, I generally avoid going on military bases unless absolutely necessary.

[rant-on]
My more cynical (realistic?) side tells me the professional military, in particular the Air Force, is basically afraid of guns and armed airmen and soldiers. Not so much the individuals, but if anyone ever gets shot by accident/negligance, commanders/supervisors/on down can definitely count on getting punished. They can definitely count on NOT being rewarded for training their people to be proficient with firearms and getting them to be responsible enough to carry them. If some terrorist/criminal runs amok on base, the response will be more barbed wire, more fences, more ID checks, but no one will think of allowing the non-security force troops to have a gun. AFCop can comment more knowledgably, but my observations were that this extends to off-duty Security Police (now Security Forces) as well (as he noted, Lackland doesn't even trust civilian law enforcement). Heck, even on my overseas deployments, altho I had to qualify with the M-9, nobody ever dreamed of actually issuing me one, and as far as I could tell there were no smallarms for anyone other than the security forces. Even in Iraq I read of our troops of all services being either required to unload their weapons (great chance for an ND) or being totally disarmed inside the bigger encampments, altho I know some found workarounds with second handguns discreetly holstered under shirts.

When the "Fort Dix Six" would-be terrorists were caught before they could attack Fort Dix, one argument a lot of their apologists made was that they weren't really serious because "who would attack an army base with all those guns." I suspect those guys knew from their contacts what actual military people know -- that the base populace is unarmed, the security forces are ready to defend but few in number, and spread thin. If the Fort Dix attackers had launched an attack, there was a high probability they would have slaughtered quite a few military, dependents, and civilians before being run to ground. I have been through a number of gates in my career, and in all but two locations the gate search policy was random search; essentially kept the good guys honest (because the good guys could not afford a career-ending boo-boo like having a gun in the car), but plenty of chances for anyone with a bit of gumption to bring a trunk full of nastiness in. Thus the Ft Dix terrorists had a high probability of driving right in, going down to the commissary on Saturday morning, and spilling a lot of blood before anyone with a gun caught up to them.

And while I am stomping my feet and yelling, I remember in 2006 there was an Army general in Alaska who forbade all his soldiers to carry concealed weapons at any time. Not on base, not OFF base, having a CHL is irrelevant -- not at all. I can't recall his name right now, but Obama will probably make him Chairman of the JCS or something.

[/rant-off]