National Guard Base

[Dragonfighter]

National Guard Armories are federally owned and you are lucky they did not confiscate your firearm. They are generally not allowed on federal military grounds.

Well I wasn't IN the base yet, they make you check in, and all that, I would have just turned around if they started with that foolishness. The Guards there aren't military, or police, they are Rent-a-cops

Careful about the rent-a-cops. They are contract to be sure but they are federal LEO certified as well. I worked for a company that was going to have me certified when these kinds of contracts first started up, but they were under bid. That said, on a military installation, they have the power to stop and detain; however the controlling military police agency ( SP, MP, etc.) must issue the citation or make the arrest.

Also, if the National Guard shares the base with the Reserves or active units, its a federal military installation. NAS Fort Worth JRB is a prime example.

[bburgi]

-----

[ELB]

...We also answer to the President as U.S. Soldiers, but he must first request our use from the Governor. ...

Brian

The Prez may "ask" the Governor for courtesy's sake, but he is not required to do so. Congress removed the requirement in 1986, and a Supreme Court case affirmed it. See my earlier post (20 Oct) in this thread for Perpich vs Dept of Defense. When push comes to shove, you belong to the feds.

I would like to see what policy your NG unit has. I am curious as to how it justifies disarming non-guard member CHL'ers. A commander can pretty much order his troops to do or not do anything that is not forbidden by law, but given that Mabry is state property, I wonder what the NG hangs its hat on for forbidding CHL carry. If in fact it does.

thx

[chabouk]

Just to clarify here... (since I'm in the Guard full time and work at Camp Mabry...)

By "full time", I assume you mean AGR?

Where does your paycheck come from? If it's DoD instead of Texas, then any building you regularly perform work in is a "federal facility" under the definition of 18 USC 930. See my earlier comments about a friend in Arkansas who is an O4 on the weekends, but a GS11 weekdays as his unit's administrative officer.

[Purplehood]

Policy has nothing to do with it. They are considered Federal facilities.

[bburgi]

-----

[marksiwel]

It doesn't matter where an individual's paycheck comes from. Personally my full time orders are ADOS - Active Duty Operational Support - and funding comes directly from the state. AGR personnel are also paid via state funds (Title 32 active duty), but Technicians (GS-scale) are federally funded. I've attached a link to the memo that I mentioned which addresses the weapons policy for Camp Mabry. https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ ... NTlh&hl=en Here are a couple of applicable quotes in case anyone has trouble downloading the file:

"Pursuant to Texas state law, residents have the right to possess a privately owned weapon as long as that possession conforms to applicable state statues and the law. Additionally, many personnel have applied for, and been granted, permits to carry concealed weapons. Since Camp Mabry is a state installation and not a federal enclave (such as Fort Hood), the Texas Military Forces has an obligation to follow the Texas state statutes when implementing policies and procedures."

"All TXMF personnel... civilian visitors and contractors... may possess a weapon in a locked glove compartment box or locked trunk of the vehicle on Texas Military Forces' installations...

...Failure to comply will subject the individual to notice that their failure to secure the weapon... constitutes a trespass in violation of Texas state law."

Notice that this passage mentions Texas Military Forces' installations, not just Camp Mabry. That would include all national guard armories around the state.


This is all based on what I've see in writing. I don't claim to know all the answers, I just work around this stuff all the time. If anyone has documentation contrary to this, I'd be interested in seeing it. Purplehood; when you say they are considered Federal facilities, where are you getting that from? Not trying to shoot you down, genuinely curious. There are no signs that say Federal property, our facilities funding is state-based, and our policies all reflect a state facility status.

Awesome thanks for the info!

[Keith B]

I think the issue may be more convoluted than that. There is the National Guard of the United States, then there is the State National Guard. If I am not mistaken, the National Guard is federal, and the State Guard are state militia. All of the units are controlled by the Guard Bureau, but there IS a difference in whether they are state or federal IIRC. However, property COULD be federal or state dependent upon the individual base and who owns it, even in a state guard scenario.

I don't have time to read through it, but this may shed some better light on things since the Guard overall gets federal funding http://www.ngbpdc.ngb.army.mil/pubs/130 ... _636_2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Purplehood]

It doesn't matter where an individual's paycheck comes from. Personally my full time orders are ADOS - Active Duty Operational Support - and funding comes directly from the state. AGR personnel are also paid via state funds (Title 32 active duty), but Technicians (GS-scale) are federally funded. I've attached a link to the memo that I mentioned which addresses the weapons policy for Camp Mabry. https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ ... NTlh&hl=en Here are a couple of applicable quotes in case anyone has trouble downloading the file:

"Pursuant to Texas state law, residents have the right to possess a privately owned weapon as long as that possession conforms to applicable state statues and the law. Additionally, many personnel have applied for, and been granted, permits to carry concealed weapons. Since Camp Mabry is a state installation and not a federal enclave (such as Fort Hood), the Texas Military Forces has an obligation to follow the Texas state statutes when implementing policies and procedures."

"All TXMF personnel... civilian visitors and contractors... may possess a weapon in a locked glove compartment box or locked trunk of the vehicle on Texas Military Forces' installations...

...Failure to comply will subject the individual to notice that their failure to secure the weapon... constitutes a trespass in violation of Texas state law."

Notice that this passage mentions Texas Military Forces' installations, not just Camp Mabry. That would include all national guard armories around the state.


This is all based on what I've see in writing. I don't claim to know all the answers, I just work around this stuff all the time. If anyone has documentation contrary to this, I'd be interested in seeing it. Purplehood; when you say they are considered Federal facilities, where are you getting that from? Not trying to shoot you down, genuinely curious. There are no signs that say Federal property, our facilities funding is state-based, and our policies all reflect a state facility status.

Are you talking Texas National Guard or Texas State Guard? I am referring to US National Guard installations in TX.

[bburgi]

-----

[chabouk]

There are Federal and State funds at work simultaneously within the National Guard. You're right in staying there could be a difference depending on who owns the property, the thing is almost all National Guard property is owned by the state.

For the purposes of 18 USC 930, it doesn't matter who owns it. When a packing plant provides an office for the USDA inspectors, that office is a "federal facility". Even if Texas owns the land and building, if the technician and administrator are DoD Civilians, then the buildings where they work are "federal facilities".

[ScottDLS]

There are Federal and State funds at work simultaneously within the National Guard. You're right in staying there could be a difference depending on who owns the property, the thing is almost all National Guard property is owned by the state.

For the purposes of 18 USC 930, it doesn't matter who owns it. When a packing plant provides an office for the USDA inspectors, that office is a "federal facility". Even if Texas owns the land and building, if the technician and administrator are DoD Civilians, then the buildings where they work are "federal facilities".

Key point here is "that office". In your example the whole meatpacking plant and property are not federal facilities. Only the offices set aside for the federal employees to regularly work. Roving federal employees don't convert every building they walk into to a federal facility. Since it appears that a lot of National Guard Facilities are owned by the state, then the state law applies. As was pointed out before, National Guard troops become federalized upon order of the President, but I don't think the bases do.