Petition: IMMEDIATELY Repeal DOD Directive 5210.56

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

IMMEDIATELY Repeal DOD Directive 5210.56, arm our military personnel and provide for MILITARY SECURITY on our bases.

DOD Directive 5210.56 provides that DOD personnel may only be armed for "...missions or threats and the immediate need to protect DOD assets or persons’ lives." Specific strategic/nuclear assets are under armed guard, but otherwise military personnel are prohibited from carrying their weapons - duty or personal - on base. In most instances, even armed security personnel (most often contracted) are required to carry unloaded weapons (condition 4 - no magazines inserted or rounds chambered).

In the light of the more than 17 attacks that have occurred on bases since 1994, we petition the government to immediately repeal DOD Directive 5210.56.

Arm our soldiers.

MILITARY SECURITY for military bases.

No more shelter in place orders.

They defend US; arm them to defend themselves.

We The People Petition: IMMEDIATELY Repeal DOD Directive 5210.56

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:

For those who are unfamiliar with this directive, here are the most important parts. Emphasis is added.

"a. DoD personnel, to whom this Directive is applicable, shall be appropriately armed and have the inherent right to self-defense.
b. ARMING DOD PERSONNEL WITH FIREARMS SHALL BE LIMITED AND CONTROLLED. Qualified personnel shall be armed when required for assigned duties and there is reasonable expectation that DoD installations, property, or personnel lives or DoD assets will be jeopardized if personnel are not armed. Evaluation of the necessity to arm DoD personnel shall be made with the consideration of the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of those arms. However, THE OVERRIDING FACTORS IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT TO ARM ARE THE MISSION AND THREAT. ARMING DOD PERSONNEL (i.e., administrative, assessment, or inspection, not regularly engaged in or directly supervising security or law enforcement activities) SHALL BE LIMITED TO MISSIONS OR THREATS AND THE IMMEDIATE NEED TO PROTECT DOD ASSETS OR PERSONS’ LIVES. DoD Components have the discretion to keep designated staff personnel qualified and available or on call to perform duties."

Since this is the US, guarding a military installation (with the exception of certain strategic/nuclear assets) is considered to be a low threat mission. On many military installations,  security personnel are generally contracted from one of the defense contractors; whether contracted or military police, security either carry weapons at condition 4 (no mag inserted and no round in the chamber) or they carry no weapons at all. The Beirut bombing (which preceded this directive) was possible in part because the base guards were required to carry their weapons at condition 4. By the time they inserted their mags and chambered rounds, the bombers had already cleared the gates and were closing in on the barracks.

The base CO has no authority to override this directive. The fact is, all weapons not being used for training purposes or actual missions are locked in the armory, and unless an order is received to distribute those arms, they are unavailable for use by all base personnel. Even personal firearms must be secured. The CO may keep designated personnel available or on call, but not on continuous duty according to this directive unless there is an imminent threat.

Pres. Obama: Law Enforcement OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSES Gun Control Legislation...

The following letter was faxed to Pres. Obama and my legislators from Michigan:

June 11, 2013

President Barak H. Obama
The White House

Mr. President,

Some time back, you stood in front of the cameras with a few police chiefs and told us that law enforcement overwhelmingly backs gun control.  A recent poll of more than 15,000 law enforcement officers, over 70% of which were officers, not elected police chiefs, however, tells a far different story.

Among the results:

* 95% of respondents said that limiting magazines to 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

* 90% oppose banning certain semi-automatic firearms.

* 85% said that proposed federal gun control legislation would have no effect on reducing crime, or would even INCREASE crime.

* NEARLY 90% SAID THAT THE PRESENCE OF LEGALLY-ARMED CITIZENS AT OUR RECENT MASS SHOOTING INCIDENTS WOULD HAVE EITHER REDUCED OR COMPLETELY PREVENTED CASUALTIES.  This result, by the way, mirrors a statement issued last year by the border patrol officer's union:

"06-20-12 In another nauseating series of "Virtual Learning Center" brainwashing courses that Border Patrol agents are forced to sit behind a computer for hours and endure, we are now taught in an "Active Shooter" course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to "run away" and "hide". If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become "aggressive" and "throw things" at him or her. We are then advised to "call law enforcement" and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered). Shooting incidents cited in the course are Columbine, the Giffords shooting and the Virginia Tech shooting. 

These types of mandatory brainwashing courses and the idiocy that accompanies them are simply stunning when they are force-fed to law enforcement officers. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that any three of the above shootings would have been stopped cold by an off-duty law enforcement officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun. The Fort Hood shooting would have been stopped cold by someone with a gun as well. The shooters in these situations depend on unarmed and scared victims. It gives them the power they seek. We could go on and on with examples of shootings that could have been stopped by someone with a firearm…"

* More than 80% favor arming school employees.

The overall conclusion of the survey?  

"Quite clearly, the majority of officers polled oppose the theories brought forth by gun-control advocates who claim that proposed restrictions on weapon capabilities and production would reduce crime.

In fact, many officers responding to this survey seem to feel that those controls will negatively affect their ability to fight violent criminals.

Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.

The officers patrolling America’s streets have a deeply-vested interest — and perhaps the most relevant interest — in making sure that decisions related to controlling, monitoring, restricting, as well as supporting and/or prohibiting an armed populace are wise and effective. With this survey, their voice has been heard."

The full results of the poll can be found here:  Gun Control Survey-11 key findings on officers' thoughts

So contrary to your public statement, Mr. President, law enforcement does not back your proposals.  And the latest polls reveal that the majority of Americans don't, either.  In fact, in terms of national priorities, only 4% list gun control as a top priority.

It is time to cease your attacks on our Second Amendment rights.  The role of government in this and other issues was clearly delineated in the 1875 Supreme Court Case, United States v. Cruikshank:

"With regard to those acknowledged rights and privileges of the citizen, which form a part of his political inheritance derived from the mother country, and which were challenged and vindicated by centuries of stubborn resistance to arbitrary power, they belong to him as his birthright, and it is the duty of the particular state of which he is a citizen to protect and enforce them, and to do naught to deprive him of their full enjoyment. When any of these rights and privileges are secured in the constitution of the United States only by a declaration that the state or the United States shall not violate or abridge them, IT IS AT ONCE UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY ARE NOT CREATED OR CONFERRED BY THE CONSTITUTION, BUT THAT THE CONSTITUTION ONLY GUARANTIES THAT [I]THEY SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED BY THE STATE, OR THE UNITED STATES, AS THE CASE MAY BE.

Respectfully submitted,

April 23, 2013: the First Anniversary of the End of the War on Terror....

April 23, 2013. 

Today is the first anniversary of the end of the war on terror.

I'll bet you didn't know that.

One year ago today, the administration did something that went largely under the radar until after the Boston Marathon bombing: it declared the war on terror to be over. 

In an interview with the National Journal, a senior State Department official stated, "The war on terror is over... Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a LEGITIMATE ISLAMISM" (all caps added). 

In other words, the administration folded. It has admitted defeat. But while the US is no longer engaged in a war on terrorism, recent events make it clear that we are still a target for terrorists.  The man who castigated Bush for declaring "mission accomplished" while still carrying out combat missions in Iraq has declared an end to the war on terror even as we deal with terrorist sleeper cells in this country.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/04/23/Obama-war-on-terror

US Army: No Purple Hearts for Victims of Ft. Hood Massacre...

OK -- so the administration made the decision to assassinate an American and his family living abroad because he was PLANNING an attack on US interests (he richly deserved prosecution for his actions, but the DOJ readily admits that they had no specific intelligence relating to specific acts of terrorism or specific targets), declaring him a traitor and a terrorist without a trial, but they are afraid to label this man, who actually carried out an attack on fellow service personnel, on US soil, a traitor and terrorist - thereby denying the affected service personnel and their families the decorations, benefits and assistance that they should rightfully be receiving? 

According to Article 3 section 3 of the Constitution, this man is a traitor: 

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." 

He carried out an act of war against the US in support of muslim extremist enemies of this country. He is a traitor and a terrorist under the terms of this article of the Constitution. He is still Constitutionally due his day in open court, but make no mistake about it - he is a traitor and a terrorist; for the military to say otherwise is an affront to all members of our armed forces, particularly those who were personally affected by his actions.

If you find this offensive, pass this on - and contact your legislators to demand that this travesty be corrected immediately.

U-S-Army-Protects-Shooter-Says-No-Purple-Hearts-For-Ft-Hood-Victims