DING DING DING ..we have a winner (though it's not just DEMS, it's politics at large)MasterOfNone wrote:Maybe he used "anointed" because whenever a lib is elected, all the speeches claim it was God's will.loadedliberal wrote:a·noint (-noint)
tr.v. a·noint·ed, a·noint·ing, a·noints
1. To apply oil, ointment, or a similar substance to.
2. To put oil on during a religious ceremony as a sign of sanctification or consecration.
3. To choose by or as if by divine intervention.Purplehood wrote:You did note that it says ANOINTED, not APPOINTED, correct?Purplehood wrote:loadedliberal wrote:Little has changed since March 1993 when Newly anointed President Bill Clinton singed in to law, what effective disarmed Military personnel on military bases.
Search found 4 matches
Return to “Carrying Concealed on a Military base in Oklahoma”
- Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:55 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Carrying Concealed on a Military base in Oklahoma
- Replies: 42
- Views: 7080
Re: Carrying Concealed on a Military base in Oklahoma
- Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:41 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Carrying Concealed on a Military base in Oklahoma
- Replies: 42
- Views: 7080
Re: Carrying Concealed on a Military base in Oklahoma
My apologizes for the confusion.. My reference to TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44, section 930 was IN ADDITION to the military regulations imposed under President Clinton which forbid specifically Military members from carrying a otherwise legally owned and carried personal weapon.
I did not intend to imply TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44, section 930.WAS or IS the guiding regulation that forbids personal carry on post.
As to My Anointed comment, it was less in derogatory nature and more to emphases he JUST TOOK OFFICE.
IN any case, I despise his time in office, his policy's enacted, his king like, to as I say not as I do attitude. But that is for a different thread.
I did not intend to imply TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44, section 930.WAS or IS the guiding regulation that forbids personal carry on post.
As to My Anointed comment, it was less in derogatory nature and more to emphases he JUST TOOK OFFICE.
IN any case, I despise his time in office, his policy's enacted, his king like, to as I say not as I do attitude. But that is for a different thread.
ScottDLS wrote:18 USC 930 doesn't seem to specifically address US Military bases, except to the extent that the buildings could be consideredbronco78 wrote:Little has changed since March 1993 when Newly anointed President Bill Clinton singed in to law, what effective disarmed Military personnel on military bases.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44, section 930 pretty well nails it down.
Before the shooting on Fort Hood, one could bring your on post registered weapon on to post with no extra measures, or fan fair. You of course not carry concealed due to Mr Clinton immoral act in 1993, but you could bring your weapon on post. (all will notice The Traitor Hassan failed to follow those rules and laws... The signs did not stop him, the paper laws did not stop him)
After the shooting, the post commander changed local police for III CORPS, you now had to register your weapon BEFORE it could com on post (vice bringing it on post and going to the MP office and registering it) You must now have your registrations papers with you, and you must declare the weapon to the contract security gate guards when you enter. At which point you will be pulled out of line, subject to a search for weapons you did not declare. And of course we know, criminals, will always follow the rules and laws, so we ARE safer,, with this policy,, The BG's now have to declare there weapon as they enter post to shoot us.
Like TSA, this policy is window dressing, it stops nothing. Random searches are a joke. I have been searched at the gate ("sir open you glove box") while I had a weapons case on the back seat ... and a box of 25 Winchester SXT. (gun was at home in the safe, I had left the case and ammo in the car for a few weeks, after I came home from a flight.. holstered the gun when I got to the parking lot and forgot the case and travel box of ammo in the back seat)
Federal Facilities as defined in the statute. And note that the buildings must be posted in order for you to be convicted. The buildings on bases that I've been to, were not posted. I'm not saying that there's no law or regulation against carrying on military "property" at all, just that it's not 18 USC 930. Military personnel are subject to the UCMJ and could be charged at a court martial for violating a regulation/base commanders' orders, but civilian visitors are not subject to the UCMJ. So I'd like to hear what federal statute a civilian would be charged with for carrying on base.
- Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:37 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Carrying Concealed on a Military base in Oklahoma
- Replies: 42
- Views: 7080
Re: Carrying Concealed on a Military base in Oklahoma
Little has changed since March 1993 when Newly anointed President Bill Clinton singed in to law, what effective disarmed Military personnel on military bases.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44, section 930 pretty well nails it down.
Before the shooting on Fort Hood, one could bring your on post registered weapon on to post with no extra measures, or fan fair. You of course not carry concealed due to Mr Clinton immoral act in 1993, but you could bring your weapon on post. (all will notice The Traitor Hassan failed to follow those rules and laws... The signs did not stop him, the paper laws did not stop him)
After the shooting, the post commander changed local police for III CORPS, you now had to register your weapon BEFORE it could com on post (vice bringing it on post and going to the MP office and registering it) You must now have your registrations papers with you, and you must declare the weapon to the contract security gate guards when you enter. At which point you will be pulled out of line, subject to a search for weapons you did not declare. And of course we know, criminals, will always follow the rules and laws, so we ARE safer,, with this policy,, The BG's now have to declare there weapon as they enter post to shoot us.
Like TSA, this policy is window dressing, it stops nothing. Random searches are a joke. I have been searched at the gate ("sir open you glove box") while I had a weapons case on the back seat ... and a box of 25 Winchester SXT. (gun was at home in the safe, I had left the case and ammo in the car for a few weeks, after I came home from a flight.. holstered the gun when I got to the parking lot and forgot the case and travel box of ammo in the back seat)
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44, section 930 pretty well nails it down.
Before the shooting on Fort Hood, one could bring your on post registered weapon on to post with no extra measures, or fan fair. You of course not carry concealed due to Mr Clinton immoral act in 1993, but you could bring your weapon on post. (all will notice The Traitor Hassan failed to follow those rules and laws... The signs did not stop him, the paper laws did not stop him)
After the shooting, the post commander changed local police for III CORPS, you now had to register your weapon BEFORE it could com on post (vice bringing it on post and going to the MP office and registering it) You must now have your registrations papers with you, and you must declare the weapon to the contract security gate guards when you enter. At which point you will be pulled out of line, subject to a search for weapons you did not declare. And of course we know, criminals, will always follow the rules and laws, so we ARE safer,, with this policy,, The BG's now have to declare there weapon as they enter post to shoot us.
Like TSA, this policy is window dressing, it stops nothing. Random searches are a joke. I have been searched at the gate ("sir open you glove box") while I had a weapons case on the back seat ... and a box of 25 Winchester SXT. (gun was at home in the safe, I had left the case and ammo in the car for a few weeks, after I came home from a flight.. holstered the gun when I got to the parking lot and forgot the case and travel box of ammo in the back seat)
- Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:28 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Carrying Concealed on a Military base in Oklahoma
- Replies: 42
- Views: 7080
Re: Carrying Concealed on a Military base in Oklahoma
Possible just a INTERNET forum communication issue.. But, please show me where in Title 10 USC it gives the right to general public to use any range paid for with government funds.Crosstimbers Okie wrote:Each installation is slightly different depending on what the commander whats. Outright prohibitions are impossible though. Federal law in Title 10 USC requires that all rifle ranges paid for with government funds be open to the public.
If so, I find it strange that in 25 years,8 states, 3 countries, using, running rifle ranges paid for with government funds, and none of them have ever been open to the public. To the contrary, the General public is specifically prohibited from even being ON the range land, never mind shooting on them.
Are you speaking to National Guard State owned and managed ranges? even then, while a single range set aside on a Reserve or NG camp might be open to the public on a limited basis, I've never seen all ranges open to general public use...
Very interested in this if you can provide a cite or link..
Thanks
